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 that day; judgment was entered July 26, 2016.
- Lindsay filed a motion for costs on July 25; Pribil and Wegener filed a motion for new trial the same day (the costs motion was timestamped slightly earlier).
- The district court entered an order awarding costs on August 8, 2016, held a hearing on the new-trial motion September 12, and overruled the new-trial motion October 14, 2016.
- Pribil and Wegener filed a notice of appeal November 9, 2016; the Nebraska Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal as untimely, treating the July 25 new-trial motion as a nullity.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court granted further review to decide whether the § 25-1144.01 savings clause made the pre-judgment new-trial motion effective and thus tolled the appeal period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lindsay) | Defendant's Argument (Pribil & Wegener) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a motion for new trial filed after announcement of verdict but before entry of judgment is effective under § 25-1144.01 | The motion was ineffective because it preceded a later court action on costs and thus preceded a final judgment | The motion was filed after announcement of the verdict and before judgment and so is saved by § 25-1144.01 and treated as filed on the day of judgment | The Court held the motion was effective under § 25-1144.01 and not a nullity; it is treated as filed after entry of judgment on that day |
| Whether § 25-1144.01’s savings clause requires the announced decision to be a "final" decision (i.e., a finality requirement) | Implied that the announcement must be final because subsequent actions (costs order) occurred before judgment | The statute requires only an "announcement of a verdict or decision"; no finality language exists, so no finality requirement should be read in | The Court held the plain language contains no finality requirement; the announced jury verdict sufficed to trigger the savings clause |
Key Cases Cited
- Macke v. Pierce, 263 Neb. 868, 643 N.W.2d 673 (2002) (held pre-judgment new-trial motions were nullities prior to the 2004 amendment)
- Despain v. Despain, 290 Neb. 32, 858 N.W.2d 566 (2015) (interpreted the 2004 savings clause in § 25-1144.01 to validate motions filed after announcement but before entry of judgment)
- In re Guardianship & Conservatorship of Woltemath, 268 Neb. 33, 680 N.W.2d 142 (2004) (construed savings clause in § 25-1912(2) to require announcement of a decision or final order)
- J & H Swine v. Hartington Concrete, 12 Neb. App. 885, 687 N.W.2d 9 (2004) (applied § 25-1912(2)-type reasoning to notices of appeal; Court of Appeals relied on it but Supreme Court found it inapplicable to § 25-1144.01)
Disposition
The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, held the July 25 motion for new trial was effective under § 25-1144.01, reinstated the appeal, and remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.