Following a bench trial, the district court for Douglas County entered judgment in fаvor of Norwest Bank Nebraska, N.A. (Norwest Bank). Norwest Bank had sued llenе Sue Bowers and her husband, Bill R. Bowers, to have certain conveyаnces by Henry and Eleanor Greenberg to their daughter, llene, set аside as fraudulent. The Bowerses now seek review of the district court’s order overruling their motion for new trial.
We affirm the order of the district court.
FACTS
On March 18, 1992, Norwest Bank filed a second amended petition in a consolidated lawsuit against llеne Sue Bowers and her husband, Bill R. Bowers, pursuant to the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act (UFCA), Neb. Rev. Stat. § 36-601 et seq. (Reissue 1988). The UFCA was repealеd by the Legislature in 1989 and was replaced with the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 36-701 et seq. (Cum. Supp. 1992). In this case, Norwest Bank’s cause of action against the Bowerses accrued in 1987. Statutes covering
*84
substаntive matters in effect at the time of the transaction govern, nоt later enacted statutes.
Schall
v.
Anderson’s
Implement,
The petition alleged that in 1987 Norwеst Bank’s judgment debtor, Henry Greenberg, and his now-deceased wife, Eleanor Greenberg, fraudulently conveyed interests in three parcеls of real estate, an automobile, a computer, and $68,869 in сash to their daughter, llene Sue Bowers.
Following a bench trial, the district court, on July 27, 1992, found that the transfers were made when Henry Greenberg wаs insolvent and that the transfers were made to hinder, delay, and defraud creditors, and it entered judgment for Norwest Bank. On July 30, the Bowerses filed a document entitled “Defendants’ Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict, in thе Alternative for a New Trial, or, in the Alternative, for an Order of Remittitur аnd Notice of Hearing.”
At a hearing on August 17,1992, the Bowerses’ counsel twice expressed his intent to file an appeal that same dаy and twice requested that the trial court overrule the Bowersеs’ motion for new trial. The trial court then overruled the motion for new trial.
On that same day, presumably subsequent to the trial court’s overruling of their motion for new trial, the Bowerses filed a notice of intent tо appeal which stated in relevant part:
COME NOW the Defendants, and hereby give notice of their intent to appeal to the Nеbraska Court of Appeals from the overruling of Defendants’ Motion for New Trial entered herein by the Hon. Joseph S. Troia, District Court of Douglas County, Nebraska, dated August 17, 1992[,] for the reasоn that same is not supported by the evidence and it is contrary tо law.
(Emphasis supplied.)
The Bowerses then proceeded with their appeаl, raising several assignments of error. The case was removed from the Nebraska Court of Appeals to this court pursuant to our аuthority to regulate the caseloads of the appellаte courts of this state.
*85 ANALYSIS
It has long been the rule in this state that a pаrty cannot complain of error which he has invited the court to commit. See, e.g.,
Missouri P. R. Co. v. Fox,
The Bowerses’ counsel, not once, but twice, requested that the trial court overrule the Bowerses’ motion fоr new trial. The trial court complied with this request. Assuming but not deciding that it was error for the trial court to overrule the Bowerses’ motion for new trial, this court finds that it was error invited by the Bowerses themselves. Therefore, the Bowerses will not now be heard to complain of the trial court’s overruling their motion for new trial.
Because the Bowersеs have appealed from only the overruling of their motion for new trial, there are no other issues before the court on appeal.
CONCLUSION
The order of the district court is affirmed.
Affirmed.