State v. McColery, 297 Neb. 53

Scott McColery posted a $5,000 appearance bond in a criminal case and executed an “Assignment of Bond” in favor of his attorney for legal services.
The State filed an affidavit of lien claiming the bond funds were subject to garnishment for McColery’s overdue child support (over $18,000).
McColery moved to release the bond funds to his attorney after conviction; the district court overruled the motion and kept the funds in the court registry.
The order denying release did not adjudicate ownership between McColery (or his attorney) and the State, nor did it commence garnishment proceedings.
McColery appealed the district court’s order denying release of the funds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the order denying release of bond funds is a final, appealable order	McColery argued the district court erred as a matter of law in denying release to his attorney	State argued the order did not affect a substantial right because it did not determine any party’s entitlement to the funds	The order is not final or appealable because it did not affect a substantial right; appeal dismissed

Big John’s Billiards v. State, 283 Neb. 496, 811 N.W.2d 205 (2012) (defines when an order affects a substantial right)
Sutton v. Killham, 285 Neb. 1, 825 N.W.2d 188 (2013) (final order principles)
Carlos H. v. Lindsay M., 283 Neb. 1004, 815 N.W.2d 168 (2012) (appealability and substantial-right analysis)
Pearce v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co., 293 Neb. 277, 876 N.W.2d 899 (2016) (final order standards)
Cattle Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Watson, 293 Neb. 943, 880 N.W.2d 906 (2016) (order affecting substantial rights explained)