Anderson v. Finkle

Citation: 296 Neb. 797Docket: S-16-222, S-16-307

Court: Nebraska Supreme Court; June 2, 2017; Nebraska; State Supreme Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Jurisdictional questions that do not involve factual disputes are determined as a matter of law, allowing appellate courts to reach independent conclusions. Statutory interpretation is also a legal question, requiring appellate courts to resolve matters independently of trial court conclusions. For an action to survive after a party's death, it must be revived according to statutory requirements; failure to do so renders the action ineffective. The death of a party suspends the action until a substitute is appointed. A court order is void if it is issued without jurisdiction, and such an order cannot be considered a judgment that grants appellate jurisdiction. Notices of appeal filed from nonappealable orders do not invalidate trial court actions taken while the appeal is pending. An order reviving an action is not deemed a final order, and appellate courts lack jurisdiction over appeals from nonfinal orders.

In the case at hand, two consolidated cases arose from Steven B. Anderson's complaint against Steve Finkle for breach of contract and unjust enrichment regarding a promissory note. After Anderson's death, the district court awarded judgment to his estate, which Finkle appealed. Both appeals were dismissed. Background details reveal that Anderson provided $50,000 to Summer Productions, LLC, for a beer garden venture that ultimately failed after a short operation, leading to bankruptcy and Finkle's default on the promissory note.

On November 21, 2013, Anderson initiated a lawsuit for breach of contract and quantum meruit/unjust enrichment. A trial was held on August 25, 2015, after which Anderson passed away on October 2. Janice M. Anderson was later appointed as the personal representative on October 30. On November 30, the district court ordered Finkle to pay $50,000 plus interest and costs, unaware of Anderson's death, as no notice had been filed regarding it. Following this, on December 4, Finkle sought a new trial or amendment to the November order. The estate filed a motion for revivor on January 25, 2016, which led to the court reviving the case in the personal representative's name on March 1. Finkle appealed the denial of his new trial motion on February 25 and the revivor order on March 22.

Finkle asserts in case No. S-16-307 that the district court lacked jurisdiction for the November 30 judgment and the January 29 order, arguing they are void due to Anderson's death prior to the revivor. In case No. S-16-222, he contends the court erred in validating the promissory note by misapplying the parol evidence rule, failing to discredit Anderson's altered testimony, determining the agreement lacked consideration, and incorrectly holding Finkle personally liable under the note.

Jurisdictional determinations, especially those not involving factual disputes, are legal matters reviewed independently by appellate courts. Nebraska statutes provide that if a party dies, the action may be revived in the name of their representatives if the right of action survives. The revival can be initiated by either party, and the action remains in effect despite a party's death or disability, provided the cause of action endures.

In cases of a party's death or disability, the court may permit the action to continue via the representative or successor in interest. If interests are transferred, actions may proceed in the original party's name or substitute the new party. A pending action must be revived per statutory requirements; non-compliance results in the action having no effect concerning the required party. The death of a party suspends the action until a substitute is appointed. In this instance, the sole plaintiff, Anderson, died on October 2, 2015, and a personal representative was appointed on October 30. The court issued a judgment on November 30, 2015, and a ruling on post-trial motions occurred on January 29, 2016. However, prior to the appeal notice filed by Finkle on February 25, 2016, the estate motioned for revivor, which the court granted on March 1, 2016, reviving the action in the personal representative's name.

The district court could only revive the action post-Anderson's death and lacked jurisdiction to issue a judgment for Anderson or deny Finkle’s motion for a new trial; thus, those orders were void. A void order cannot confer appellate jurisdiction, meaning Finkle’s initial appeal did not affect the district court's jurisdiction. The valid action taken was the revival, which Finkle later appealed on March 22, 2016. The revivor motion was made under Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-1406, and the court granted it under Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-322. Importantly, an order of revivor is not considered a final order, and appeals cannot be taken from non-final orders, leading to the dismissal of Finkle’s second notice of appeal.

The district court's judgment and order denying Finkle's motion for a new trial following Anderson's death on October 2, 2015, in case No. S-16-222, is declared void and dismissed. Although the district court retained jurisdiction, the appeal concerning the order of revivor in case No. S-16-307 is dismissed due to its lack of finality. The case was suspended upon Anderson's death, and the subsequent orders issued by the district court after his death are invalid. Anderson had filed a complaint against Finkle for breach of contract and unjust enrichment after Finkle failed to honor a $50,000 promissory note. Following a trial in August 2015, and unbeknownst to the court, Anderson died before the court issued its ruling on November 30, which awarded him the amount due. Janice M. Anderson was later appointed as his personal representative. The court's lack of knowledge regarding Anderson's death at the time of its order contributed to the dismissal of both appeals.

On December 4, 2015, Finkle filed a motion for a new trial or to amend the trial court’s November 30 order. The estate filed a motion for revivor on January 25, 2016. The district court denied Finkle's new trial motion on January 29, and Finkle appealed this decision on February 25. The court revived the matter on March 1 in the name of the estate's personal representative, and Finkle appealed the revivor order on March 22.

In case No. S-16-307, Finkle argues the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue the November judgment and the January order, claiming both are void due to being entered after Anderson's death and before the revivor order. In case No. S-16-222, Finkle contends the court erred in finding the promissory note valid and enforceable on several grounds: misapplication of the parol evidence rule, failure to disregard Anderson's changed testimony, lack of consideration for the agreement, and Finkle's alleged personal liability under the note.

Jurisdictional issues are treated as questions of law, which appellate courts review independently, as established by Nebraska statutes. Specifically, Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-1405 allows for the revival of actions when a party dies, provided the right of action survives in favor of their representatives. Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-1406 outlines the process for revivor, which can be initiated via a conditional court order during term or by a judge in vacation, and Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-1407 specifies that the order can be requested by either party.

An action remains valid despite the death or disability of a party, provided the cause of action survives. In such cases, the court can allow the action to proceed with a representative or successor in interest. If an interest is transferred, the action can continue under the original party's name or allow the transferee to be substituted. A pending action must be revived according to statutory procedures; failure to do so renders the action ineffective for involved entities. 

In this specific case, plaintiff Anderson died on October 2, 2015. His personal representative was appointed on October 30, and a judgment was entered on November 30, 2015. However, the trial court only had jurisdiction to revive the action in the representative's name after a motion for revivor was filed on January 25, 2016. The court's subsequent orders, including the judgment and denial of a new trial motion, lacked jurisdiction and were considered void. Consequently, Finkle's appeal from these void orders did not grant appellate jurisdiction. Thus, the February 25, 2016, appeal did not affect the district court's jurisdiction.

The district court revived proceedings in the name of Anderson’s personal representative on March 1, 2016, allowing the estate to continue the case. Finkle filed a second notice of appeal on March 22, 2016, challenging the order of revivor and all related orders and judgments. The revival motion was based on Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-1406, but the court granted it under Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-322. Despite this, the distinction was deemed irrelevant for analysis, as any order reviving an action is not considered final and thus not immediately appealable. Consequently, Finkle’s appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The district court’s judgment and order regarding the new trial motion following Anderson’s death were also declared void and dismissed. The court confirmed that it retained jurisdiction, and the order of revivor remains effective, but Finkle's appeal regarding it was dismissed due to its nonfinal status. Both appeals, S-16-222 and S-16-307, were dismissed.