S-16-0222, Steven B. Anderson v. Steve Finkle (Appellant)
District Court for Douglas County, Hon. Shelly R. Stratman
Attorneys: Benjamin M. Belmont and William Oliver Jenkins, Brodkey, Peebles, Belmont & Line, Omaha; John A. Kinney and Jill M. Mason, Kinney Mason, Omaha.
Proceedings Below: Anderson filed a complaint against Finkle on a promissory note. The district court entered judgement in Anderson’s favor for $55,000. Finkle appeals.
Issues on Appeal: Finkle assigns that the district court erred in (1) applying the parol evidence rule to bar consideration of evidence outside of the agreement; (2) finding the note valid and enforceable; and (3) in discrediting Anderson’s testimony as a matter of law.
S-16-0307, Steve Anderson (appellee) v. Steve Finkle (appellant)
District Court for Douglas County, Hon. Shelly R. Stratman.
Attorneys: John A. Kinney and Jill M. Mason (Kinney Mason, PC, LLO) (appellee); Benjamin M. Belmont and Wm. Oliver Jenkins (Brodkey, Peebles, Belmont & Line LLP) (appellant)
Civil: breach of contract
Proceedings below: Steve Anderson filed a complaint against Steve Finkle on a promissory note. After a bench trial, the district court entered judgment Anderson’s favor for $55,000. The district court then denied Finkle’s motion for new trial. Anderson died after the trial but before judgment was entered. Anderson’s estate eventually filed a motion for revivor, which the district court granted. Finkle appeals.
Issue: Appellant argues: (1) The district court lacked jurisdiction after Anderson died and before the court entered an order of revivor, and therefore lacked jurisdiction to enter judgment after trial and to rule on the motion for new trial. (2) The district court lacked jurisdiction to enter an order of revivor after Finkle perfected his first appeal in this case, case No. S-16-222. (3) The district court erred when it applied the parol evidence rule to bar consideration of evidence outside the agreement. (4) The district court erred in finding the promissory note valid and enforceable. (5) The district court erred in failing to discredit testimonial evidence of Anderson as a matter of law.