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.
- Verdict forms were filed July 21; final judgment on the verdict was entered July 26, 2016.
- Lindsay filed a motion for costs on July 25; Pribil and Wegener filed a motion for new trial later that same day (efile timestamps show costs motion accepted about 2 hours before defendants’ motion).
- Court awarded costs August 8, held a hearing on the new-trial motion September 12, and overruled the motion on October 14, 2016.
- Pribil and Wegener filed a notice of appeal November 9, 2016; the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal as untimely, reasoning the July 25 new-trial motion was a nullity because it was filed before a final order on costs.
- Nebraska Supreme Court granted further review to resolve whether the savings clause in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1144.01 renders a motion for new trial filed after announcement of verdict but before entry of judgment effective.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lindsay) | Defendant's Argument (Pribil & Wegener) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the July 25 motion for new trial was a nullity because it was filed before judgment and before ruling on costs | Motion for new trial was premature and ineffective because filed before entry of a final judgment (court had not yet ruled on costs) | Motion was filed after announcement of the jury verdict but before entry of judgment and thus is saved by § 25-1144.01 and treated as filed on day of judgment | Motion was effective under § 25-1144.01; not a nullity |
| Whether the savings clause in § 25-1144.01 contains a finality requirement (i.e., announcement must be of a final decision) | Savings clause should not apply when later non-final proceedings (like costs) remain pending | Savings clause requires only an "announcement of a verdict or decision," with no finality requirement; applies here | Savings clause contains no finality requirement; announcement of jury verdict suffices |
| Whether a timely motion for new trial under § 25-1144.01 terminates the appeal period | If motion is a nullity, it does not terminate the appeal period | If motion is effective under § 25-1144.01, appeal period runs from denial of motion | Because motion was effective, time to appeal ran from denial (Oct. 14); notice filed within 30 days was timely |
| Whether precedent requiring finality (cases under § 25-1912(2)) controls interpretation of § 25-1144.01 | J & H Swine and related decisions compel treating pre-judgment filings as ineffective when subsequent non-final actions remain | Those cases interpret a different statute (§ 25-1912(2)) that explicitly references "final" orders; they do not control § 25-1144.01 | Precedent under § 25-1912(2) is inapplicable; § 25-1144.01 must be applied according to its plain language |
Key Cases Cited
- Macke v. Pierce, 263 Neb. 868 (court previously held that a pre-judgment motion for new trial was a nullity under earlier statute)
- Despain v. Despain, 290 Neb. 32 (interpreting 2004 amendment to § 25-1144.01 and holding post-announcement/pre-judgment new-trial motion effective)
- In re Guardianship & Conservatorship of Woltemath, 268 Neb. 33 (construed savings clause in § 25-1912(2) to require an announcement of a final, appealable order)
- J & H Swine v. Hartington Concrete, 12 Neb. App. 885 (Neb. Ct. App. decision applying Woltemath reasoning to pre-judgment new-trial motions)
Conclusion: Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, held the July 25 motion for new trial was effective under § 25-1144.01 (no finality requirement), reinstated the appeal, and remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.