Lindsay Internat. Sales & Serv. v. Wegener
297 Neb. 788
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Lindsay sued Pribil and Wegener on a guaranty; a jury returned a verdict for Lindsay on July 21, 2016, which the court accepted on the record the same day; formal judgment was entered July 26, 2016.
- On July 25, Lindsay filed a motion for costs; on the same day (filed ~2 hours later) Pribil and Wegener filed a motion for new trial — after the jury’s verdict announcement but before entry of judgment.
- The court awarded costs to Lindsay on August 8 and held a hearing on the motion for new trial September 12; the court overruled the motion for new trial October 14.
- Pribil and Wegener filed a notice of appeal November 9, 2016 (within 30 days of the October 14 overruling).
- The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal as untimely, treating the July 25 motion for new trial as a nullity because it was filed before a final judgment; the Nebraska Supreme Court granted further review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Pribil/Wegener) | Defendant's Argument (Lindsay) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a motion for new trial filed after announcement of verdict but before entry of judgment is effective under § 25-1144.01 | Motion was filed after announcement of the jury verdict and thus falls within § 25-1144.01 savings clause and is treated as filed on the day of entry of judgment | Motion was premature and ineffective because other post-verdict matters (motion for costs) meant no final judgment had been announced; thus the new-trial motion was a nullity | Held: Motion was effective. The statute’s savings clause applies when a motion is filed after an announcement of a verdict or decision even if formal judgment has not yet been entered; no additional finality requirement exists. |
| Whether a timely motion for new trial tolls the 30-day appeal period | The motion tolled the appeal period; appellants filed notice within 30 days after the motion was overruled | Lindsay argued the motion was null and thus did not toll the appeal period, making the November notice untimely | Held: Because the motion was effective, the appeal period was tolled and the November 9 notice of appeal was timely. |
| Whether a court may read a "finality" requirement into § 25-1144.01 based on analogous statutes | § 25-1144.01 contains no language requiring that the announcement be of a final decision, so no finality requirement should be read in | Lindsay urged applying reasoning from § 25-1912(2) cases that require an announcement of a final order | Held: Court refused to import a finality requirement from § 25-1912(2); § 25-1144.01’s plain language controls. |
| Whether the Court of Appeals misapplied precedent in dismissing the appeal | The court misapplied precedent by relying on cases addressing a different statute and by ignoring the 2004 savings-clause amendment to § 25-1144.01 | Urged affirmance based on prior decisions treating premature motions as nullities | Held: Court of Appeals erred; prior cases (Macke) were superseded by the 2004 amendment and Despain interpretation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Macke v. Pierce, 263 Neb. 868 (2002) (earlier Nebraska ruling that a motion for new trial filed before entry of judgment was a nullity; later effectively superseded by statutory amendment)
- Despain v. Despain, 290 Neb. 32 (2015) (interpreting the 2004 savings clause in § 25-1144.01 to allow a motion filed after announcement but before formal judgment to be effective)
- In re Guardianship & Conservatorship of Woltemath, 268 Neb. 33 (2004) (interpreting a different savings clause in § 25-1912(2) to require an announcement of a decision or final order that would be appealable)
- J & H Swine v. Hartington Concrete, 12 Neb. App. 885 (2004) (Court of Appeals decision applying a finality notion; distinguished by the Supreme Court as inapplicable to § 25-1144.01)
- Firstier Mtge. Co. v. Investors Mtge. Ins. Co., 498 U.S. 269 (1991) (U.S. Supreme Court decision referenced regarding what constitutes an "announcement" for savings-clause purposes)