- 632 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

296 Nebraska Report

CLARKE v. FIRST NAT. BANK OF OMAHA

Cite as 296 Neb. 632

Linda Clarke, appellee, v. First Na

Bank of Omaha, defendant and thi

plaintiff, appellee, and Gregg

third-party defendant, appe

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed May 12, 2017. No. S-16-146.

1. Jurisdiction. A question of jurisdiction is a question of law.

2. Statutes. Statutory interpretation presents a question of law.

3. Judgments: Appeal and Error. Appellate courts independently review 

questions of law decided by a lower court.

4. Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. Before reaching the legal issues presented for review, it is the power and duty of an appellate court to determine whether it has jurisdiction over the matter before it, irrespective of 

whether the issue is raised by the parties.

5. Jurisdiction: Time: Notice: Appeal and Error. Under Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§ 25-1912 (Reissue 2016), to vest an appellate court with jurisdiction, a 

party must timely file a notice of appeal.

6. Judgments: Time: Notice: Appeal and Error. Under Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§ 25-1912(3) (Reissue 2016), filing a timely postjudgment motion terminates the time in which a notice of appeal must be filed; instead, the 

30-day period to appeal starts anew upon the entry of the order ruling 

upon the postjudgment motion.

7. ____: ____: ____: ____. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1912(3) (Reissue 2016) 

provides a savings clause for a notice of appeal filed after the announcement of the court’s decision on a timely postjudgment motion but before 

a ruling thereon has been entered; the notice of appeal is treated as filed 

on the date of and after the entry of the order.

8. ____: ____: ____: ____. Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1912 (Reissue 

2016), to determine if a notice of appeal filed before the court has 

entered an order or judgment on a postjudgment motion is effective, 

an appellate court must answer two questions: (1) Was the postjudgment motion timely and effective, and (2) Was the notice of appeal 

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/

07/21/2017 08:11 AM CDT
- 633 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

296 Nebraska Report

CLARKE v. FIRST NAT. BANK OF OMAHA

Cite as 296 Neb. 632

filed after the court announced its decision or order on the postjudgment motion?

9. New Trial: Words and Phrases. Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1142 

(Reissue 2016), a new trial is a reexamination in the same court of an 

issue of fact after a verdict by a jury, a report of a referee, or a trial and 

decision by the court.

10. Summary Judgment: Motions for New Trial: Time: Notice: Appeal 

and Error. A motion for new trial following the entry of summary 

judgment is not a proper motion and does not terminate the 30-day 

period to file a notice of appeal under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1912 

(Reissue 2016).

11. Pleadings: Judgments. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1329 (Reissue 2016) does 

not clearly define the grounds for filing a motion to alter or amend 

a judgment.

12. Pleadings: Judgments: Appeal and Error. An appellate court reviews 

a postjudgment motion based on the relief it seeks, rather than its title.

13. Pleadings: Judgments. Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1329 (Reissue 

2016), if a postjudgment motion seeks a substantive alteration of the 

judgment—as opposed to the correction of clerical errors or relief 

wholly collateral to the judgment—a court may treat the motion as one 

to alter or amend the judgment.

14. ____: ____. Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1329 (Reissue 2016), a motion 

for reconsideration is the functional equivalent of a motion to alter or 

amend a judgment.

15. Judges: Words and Phrases. A judge’s proclamation from the bench is 

an announcement.

16. Words and Phrases. An announcement may include trial docket notes, 

file-stamped but unsigned journal entries, or signed journal entries 

which are not file stamped.

17. Judgments: Notice: Appeal and Error. For the savings clause in 

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1912(3) (Reissue 2016) to be effective, the 

notice of appeal must show on its face that it relates to the decision 

which has been announced by the trial court and the record must show 

that a judgment was subsequently rendered or entered in accordance 

with the decision which was announced and to which the notice of 

appeal relates.

18. Pleadings: Judgments: Appeal and Error. Under Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§ 25-1912 (Reissue 2016), Reutzel v. Reutzel, 252 Neb. 354, 562 N.W.2d 

351 (1997), has been superseded on its holding that a portion of Dale 

Electronics, Inc. v. Federal Ins. Co., 203 Neb. 133, 277 N.W.2d 572 

(1979), is of no effect and on its holding that the savings clause adopted 

in Dale Electronics, Inc., does not apply to § 25-1912.
- 634 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

296 Nebraska Report

CLARKE v. FIRST NAT. BANK OF OMAHA

Cite as 296 Neb. 632

19. Records: Appeal and Error. It is the appellant’s burden to create a 

record for the appellate court which supports the errors assigned.

20. ____: ____. A party’s brief may not expand the evidentiary record.

Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County: She

R. Stratman, Judge. Appeal dismiss

Norman Denenberg for appellant.

Susan J. Spahn, of Endacott, Peetz & Timmer, P.C., L.L.O., 

for appellee First National Bank of Omaha.

Edward W. Hasenjager and Howard A. Kaiman for appellee 

Linda Clarke.

Heavican, C.J., Wright, Cassel, Stacy, 

Funke, JJ

Funke, J

NATURE OF CASE

Gregg Graham appealed from orders by the district court 

for Douglas County which granted summary judgment for 

appellee Linda Clarke against appellee First National Bank of 

Omaha (FNB) and in favor of FNB against Graham. Graham 

filed his notice of appeal after filing a motion for new trial but 

before the court had ruled on the motion.

FNB filed a motion for summary dismissal arguing that the 

Nebraska Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction, under Neb. 

Rev. Stat. § 25-1912(3) (Reissue 2016). The Court of Appeals 

overruled the motion for summary dismissal. We dismiss the 

appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Graham’s notice of 

appeal was filed prematurely and is, therefore, without effect.

FACTS

Backgr

In February 2013, Hilda Graham (Hilda) and Clarke opened 

an account (the Account) with FNB to hold a certificate of 

deposit (CD). The account agreement classified the Account as 
- 635 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

296 Nebraska Report

CLARKE v. FIRST NAT. BANK OF OMAHA

Cite as 296 Neb. 632

a multiparty account with rights of survivorship in both Hilda 

and Clarke.

In August 2013, Hilda called FNB and spoke with Naomi 

Craven, an assistant branch manager. During the call, Hilda 

requested that the account be changed to a single-party account 

with a pay-on-death beneficiary, removing Clarke as the 

co-owner with a right of survivorship. Hilda requested that 

Graham be named the pay-on-death beneficiary.

Despite FNB’s internal procedure and Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§ 30-2724(a) (Reissue 2016), each requiring signed written 

notice before changing an account’s type, Craven made the 

change to the Account before Hilda signed a new account 

agreement. Craven claimed that she printed an updated account 

agreement for Hilda to sign and mailed it to her. Craven testified that she believed she saw Hilda’s account agreement, 

signed, days later, but that the account agreement was not 

scanned into FNB’s electronic document system and could not 

be located.

Hilda died in September 2013. When Clarke requested payment of the CD from FNB, she was denied access because she 

was listed as neither a co-owner nor a pay-on-death beneficiary 

on the Account in FNB’s computer records. Instead, Graham 

was paid the balance of the CD based on Craven’s changes to 

the Account.

Procedural His

Clarke filed suit against FNB, alleging that she was the 

owner of the CD. FNB denied the allegations of Clarke’s 

complaint but also filed a third-party action seeking recovery against Graham to the extent FNB was liable to Clarke. 

Clarke subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment 

against FNB, and as a result, FNB filed a motion for summary judgment against Clarke and, in the alternative, against 

Graham.

The following timeline includes the relevant dates to this 

appeal:
- 636 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

296 Nebraska Report

CLARKE v. FIRST NAT. BANK OF OMAHA

Cite as 296 Neb. 632

• February 1, 2016: Clarke’s motion for summary judgment

against FNB and FNB’s motion for summary judgment 

against Graham were sustained by written order of the court.

• February 5, 2016: Graham’s “Motion for New Trial to Amend

Judgment of Summary Judgment Order” was filed.

• February 9, 2016: Graham’s notice of appeal was filed.

• February 12, 2016: The order denying Graham’s motion for

new trial was entered.

FNB filed a motion for summary dismissal before the 

Court of Appeals, arguing that it lacked jurisdiction because 

Graham’s notice of appeal was filed prematurely and, therefore, was without effect, under § 25-1912. In response, Graham 

argued that he filed the notice of appeal after the district court 

judge’s bailiff had informed his attorney that his motion would 

be vacated because a motion for a new trial is not allowed to 

challenge an order of summary judgment.

In response to the motion for summary dismissal, 

Graham’s attorney filed an “Opposition” and an “Affidavit in

Opposition” to the motion for summary dismissal. Attached 

to the “Opposition” was an unsigned correspondence dated

February 11, 2016, from Graham’s counsel to the bailiff. The 

letter indicated that Graham’s counsel had filed a motion for 

new trial; that a hearing date had been set; that he had been 

advised by the bailiff that his motion for new trial was not 

allowed to challenge a summary judgment; and that as a result, 

he had filed a notice of appeal.

The Court of Appeals overruled the motion for summary 

dismissal. We moved this case to our docket under our statutory authority to regulate the caseloads of the appellate courts 

of this state.1

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

Graham assigns, restated, that the court erred in (1) finding that there was no evidence that the account agreement 

was actually signed and returned by Hilda, (2) finding that the 

1 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-1106(3) (Reissue 2016).
- 637 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

296 Nebraska Report

CLARKE v. FIRST NAT. BANK OF OMAHA

Cite as 296 Neb. 632

funds from the CD in the Account were erroneously released 

to him, and (3) not applying Neb. U.C.C. § 3-309 (Cum. Supp. 

2016) to enforce the lost or destroyed signature card.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1] A question of jurisdiction is a question of law.2

[2] Statutory interpretation presents a question of law.3

[3] Appellate courts independently review questions of law 

decided by a lower court.4

ANALYSIS

[4] Before reaching the legal issues presented for review, 

it is the power and duty of an appellate court to determine 

whether it has jurisdiction over the matter before it, irrespective of whether the issue is raised by the parties.5

[5,6] Under § 25-1912, to vest an appellate court with jurisdiction, a party must timely file a notice of appeal.6

 A party 

must file a notice of appeal within 30 days of the judgment, 

decree, or final order from which the party is appealing.7

However, filing a timely motion for a new trial or a timely 

motion to alter or amend a judgment terminates the time in 

which a notice of appeal must be filed.8 Instead, the 30-day 

period to appeal starts anew upon the entry of the order ruling 

upon the motion for a new trial or the motion to alter or amend 

a judgment.9

[7] Section 25-1912(3) provides a savings clause for a notice 

of appeal filed after the announcement of the court’s decision 

2 Cain v. Custer Cty. Bd. of Equal., 291 Neb. 730, 868 N.W.2d 334 (2015).

3 RM Campbell Indus. v. Midwest Renewable Energy, 294 Neb. 326, 886 

N.W.2d 240 (2016).

4 Douglas County v. Archie, 295 Neb. 674, 891 N.W.2d 93 (2017).

5 State v. Thieszen, 295 Neb. 293, 887 N.W.2d 871 (2016).

6 See, also, Despain v. Despain, 290 Neb. 32, 858 N.W.2d 566 (2015).

7 § 25-1912(1).

8 § 25-1912(3).

9 Id.
- 638 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

296 Nebraska Report

CLARKE v. FIRST NAT. BANK OF OMAHA

Cite as 296 Neb. 632

on a timely postjudgment motion but before a ruling thereon 

has been entered. In relevant part, it states:

When any motion terminating the time for filing a notice 

of appeal is timely filed by any party, a notice of appeal 

filed before the court announces its decision upon the terminating motion shall have no effect, whether filed before 

or after the timely filing of the terminating motion. A 

new notice of appeal shall be filed within the prescribed 

time after the entry of the order ruling on the motion. . 

. . A notice of appeal filed after the court announces its 

decision or order on the terminating motion but before 

the entry of the order is treated as filed on the date of and 

after the entry of the order.

10

[8] Accordingly, we must consider two questions to determine if Graham’s notice of appeal was timely. First, we must 

decide whether Graham’s motion for new trial in response to 

the order granting summary judgment terminated the 30-day 

appeal period. Second, if the motion did terminate the 30-day 

appeal period, we must decide whether Graham’s notice of 

appeal was filed after the court announced its decision or order 

on the postjudgment motion.

Graham’s Motion for New Tri

Effectively Motion to

Amend Which Terminate

to File Notice of A

[9,10] Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1142 (Reissue 2016), a 

new trial is a reexamination in the same court of an issue of 

fact after a verdict by a jury, a report of a referee, or a trial 

and decision by the court.11 Summary judgment proceedings 

10 Id. (emphasis supplied).

11 Strong v. Omaha Constr. Indus. Pension Plan, 270 Neb. 1, 701 N.W.2d 

320 (2005), abrogated, Kennedy v. Plan Administrator for DuPont Sav. 

and Investment Plan, 555 U.S. 285, 129 S. Ct. 865, 172 L. Ed. 2d 662 

(2009).
- 639 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

296 Nebraska Report

CLARKE v. FIRST NAT. BANK OF OMAHA

Cite as 296 Neb. 632

do not resolve factual issues, but instead determine whether 

there is a material issue of fact in dispute.12 Therefore, a 

motion for new trial following the entry of summary judgment is not a proper motion and does not terminate the 30-day 

period to file a notice of appeal under § 25-1912.13

[11-13] However, our statutes do not clearly define the 

grounds for filing a motion to alter or amend a judgment, 

unlike a motion for new trial.14 Accordingly, we review a postjudgment motion based on the relief it seeks, rather than its 

title.15 If the postjudgment motion seeks a substantive alteration 

of the judgment—as opposed to the correction of clerical errors 

or relief wholly collateral to the judgment—a court may treat 

the motion as one to alter or amend the judgment.16 A motion 

to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 10 

days after the entry of judgment.17

[14] In Strong v. Omaha Constr. Indus. Pension Plan,

18 the 

appellant filed a motion for new trial after the entry of an 

order for summary judgment. The motion for new trial sought 

“‘an Order granting a new trial’ and any other ‘relief deemed

equitable and just’” because “there were irregularities in the

proceedings and . . . the court erred on questions of law.” We 

stated that “[i]n effect, [the appellant had] requested that the

court reconsider its grant of summary judgment.”19 We further held that a motion for reconsideration is the functional 

equivalent of a motion to alter or amend a judgment, which 

12 Id.

13 See, Despain, supra note 6; Strong, supra note 11.

14 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1329 (Reissue 2016).

15 See Diversified Telecom Servs. v. Clevinger, 268 Neb. 388, 683 N.W.2d 

338 (2004).

16 Strong, supra note 11.

17 See § 25-1329.

18 Strong, supra note 11, 270 Neb. at 6, 701 N.W.2d at 326.

19 Id.
- 640 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

296 Nebraska Report

CLARKE v. FIRST NAT. BANK OF OMAHA

Cite as 296 Neb. 632

terminates the period in which a party must file a notice 

of appeal.20

Graham’s motion for new trial requested that the court 

vacate its decisions granting summary judgment and hold a 

trial to resolve the genuine issues of material fact. Graham 

based his request on numerous grounds, including a claim of 

irregularities in the proceedings and a claim that the order was 

contrary to law. Accordingly, Graham’s motion for new trial 

was, in effect, a motion for reconsideration, which we treat as 

a motion to alter or amend the judgment.

Graham filed his motion 4 days after the court granted summary dismissal. Therefore, the motion was timely filed and 

terminated the 30-day period to appeal.

Graham’s Notice of Appeal Was Wit

Effect Because It Was Fi

Court Announced Its D

Graham’s Postjudgment 

FNB argues that under § 25-1912(3), a notice of appeal is 

without effect when it is filed before the court enters an order 

on a timely postjudgment motion, citing Haber v. V & R Joint 

Venture21 and Reutzel v. Reutzel.

22 Further, it contends that 

there is no evidence on the record, other than Graham’s allegations, that the court had actually ruled on Graham’s motion for 

new trial.

Graham contends that § 25-1912(3) has been amended since 

our decision in Reutzel to include the savings clause discussed above. He further contends that the district court judge 

announced the denial of his motion for new trial through her 

bailiff prior to the filing of his notice of appeal.

Statutory language is to be given its plain and ordinary 

meaning, and an appellate court will not resort to interpretation 

20 Id.

21 Haber v. V & R Joint Venture, 263 Neb. 529, 641 N.W.2d 31 (2002).

22 Reutzel v. Reutzel, 252 Neb. 354, 562 N.W.2d 351 (1997).
- 641 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

296 Nebraska Report

CLARKE v. FIRST NAT. BANK OF OMAHA

Cite as 296 Neb. 632

to ascertain the meaning of statutory words which are plain, 

direct, and unambiguous.23

The Legislature has not defined “announces” in § 25-1912(3).

The word “announcement” is also used in § 25-1912(2) and

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1144.01 (Reissue 2016), which latter 

is the statute setting forth the time to file a motion for new 

trial. However, neither statute nor any related statutes define 

announcement.

Section 25-1912(2) states:

A notice of appeal or docket fee filed or deposited after 

the announcement of a decision or final order but before 

the entry of the judgment, decree, or final order shall be 

treated as filed or deposited after the entry of the judgment, decree, or final order and on the date of entry.

Section 25-1144.01, which is mentioned in § 25-1912, provides, in relevant part, that “[a] motion for a new trial filed

after the announcement of a verdict or decision but before the 

entry of judgment shall be treated as filed after the entry of 

judgment and on the day thereof.”

In Despain v. Despain,

24 the appellant filed a motion for 

new trial after the court distributed an unsigned journal entry 

containing its substantive decision, but before the court filed 

the signed dissolution decree. The unsigned journal entry 

contained the following statements: “‘In order to avoid confusion as to appeal time, [t]his order shall be forwarded to 

counsel both unsigned and unfiled. A signed copy will be 

filed contemporaneously with the entry of the decree.’”25 The 

court subsequently overruled the motion for new trial, and the 

appellant filed a notice of appeal.26

The appellee argued that the motion for new trial was 

untimely and without effect because it was filed before the 

23 In re Interest of Tyrone K., 295 Neb. 193, 887 N.W.2d 489 (2016).

24 See Despain, supra note 6.

25 Id. at 35, 858 N.W.2d at 569.

26 Despain, supra note 6.
- 642 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

296 Nebraska Report

CLARKE v. FIRST NAT. BANK OF OMAHA

Cite as 296 Neb. 632

court entered its decree.27 Accordingly, the appellee contended 

that a notice of appeal filed more than 30 days after the decree 

was entered was not timely and that we, therefore, lacked 

jurisdiction over the appeal.28

We rejected the appellee’s argument and determined that 

based on the plain language of § 25-1144.01, the copies of 

the “unsigned journal entry . . . sent to the parties [were] the

court’s ‘announcement of a . . . decision’ as that expression is

used in § 25-1144.01.”29

Justice Cassel wrote separately to concur with our decision 

in Despain, noting that even with the savings clause set forth 

in § 25-1144.01, a premature motion for new trial is still possible “[i]f the motion is filed before the ‘announcement’ of the

verdict or decision” and that such a motion would be a nullity.30 Justice Cassel’s reasoning leads to the same conclusion 

in the context of § 25-1912(3).

The Court of Appeals has also considered what qualifies as 

an announcement under § 25-1912(2). In State v. Brown,

31 the 

Court of Appeals provided a nonexhaustive list of statements 

that constitute an announcement of a decision or order: those 

“orally from the bench, from trial docket notes, file-stamped

but unsigned journal entries, or signed journal entries which 

are not file stamped.”

We are also informed by the ordinary meanings of 

“announce” and “announcement.” Black’s Law Dictionary

defines “announce” as “[t]o make publicly known; to proclaim

formally <the judge announced her decision in open court>.”32

27 Id.

28 Id.

29 Id. at 40, 858 N.W.2d at 572.

30 Id. at 46, 858 N.W.2d at 576 (Cassel, J., concurring).

31 State v. Brown, 12 Neb. App. 940, 941, 687 N.W.2d 203, 206 (2004).

32 Black’s Law Dictionary 109 (10th ed. 2014). See, also, “Announce,”

Oxford English Dictionary Online, http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/7931 

(last visited May 2, 2017) (“to make public or official intimation of, to

proclaim”).
- 643 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

296 Nebraska Report

CLARKE v. FIRST NAT. BANK OF OMAHA

Cite as 296 Neb. 632

The Oxford English Dictionary defines “announcement” as

“[t]he action or process of announcing; public or official notification, intimation, declaration.”33

[15,16] Based on our prior holdings and the preceding definitions, it is clear that a judge’s proclamation from the bench 

is an announcement. However, an announcement is not limited 

to statements from the bench. An announcement may also 

include trial docket notes, file-stamped but unsigned journal 

entries, or signed journal entries which are not file stamped. 

It is clear that making an announcement requires some type 

of public or official notification, as the ordinary meaning of 

“announce” requires.

[17] In Dale Electronics, Inc. v. Federal Ins. Co.,

34 we held 

that a notice of appeal filed after the court announced its decision by letter, but before it had entered its decision, was timely. 

Specifically, we stated:

[A] notice of appeal filed after the trial court has 

announced its decision, but before a judgment has been 

rendered or entered, is effective to confer jurisdiction on 

this court if the notice of appeal shows on its face that 

it relates to the decision which has been announced by 

the trial court and the record shows that a judgment was 

subsequently rendered or entered in accordance with the 

decision which was announced and to which the notice of 

appeal relates.35

After our decision in Dale Electronics, Inc., the Legislature 

added § 25-1912(2) (Reissue 1995) (now codified as 

§ 25-1912(3) (Reissue 2016)36), but without the savings 

clause.37 The revised language was as follows:

33 “Announcement,” Oxford English Dictionary Online, http://www.oed.com/

view/Entry/7933 (last visited May 2, 2017).

34 Dale Electronics, Inc. v. Federal Ins. Co., 203 Neb. 133, 277 N.W.2d 572 

(1979).

35 Id. at 137, 277 N.W.2d at 574.

36 See 2000 Neb. Laws, L.B. 921, § 15.

37 See 1997 Neb. Laws, L.B. 398, § 1.
- 644 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

296 Nebraska Report

CLARKE v. FIRST NAT. BANK OF OMAHA

Cite as 296 Neb. 632

The running of the time for filing a notice of appeal shall 

be terminated as to all parties (a) by a motion for a new 

trial . . . , and the full time for appeal fixed in subsection (1) of this section commences to run from the entry 

of the order ruling upon the motion filed pursuant to 

subdivision (a) . . . of this subsection. When any motion 

terminating the time for filing a notice of appeal is timely 

filed by any party, a notice of appeal filed before the 

entry of the order ruling upon the motion shall have no 

effect, whether filed before or after the timely filing of the 

motion. A new notice of appeal shall be filed within the 

prescribed time from the ruling on the motion. No additional fees shall be required for such filing.38

We then interpreted the amended version of § 25-1912(2) 

(Reissue 1995) in Reutzel v. Reutzel39 and determined that 

our holding in Dale Electronics, Inc. was superseded by the 

new statutory language. We held that the appellant’s notice 

of appeal, filed after the filing of a motion for new trial but 

before the court had entered its ruling on the motion, was of 

no effect.

[18] However, in 1997, the Legislature added the savings 

clause to § 25-1912(3) (Cum. Supp. 1998). The savings clause 

is substantively similar to our statement in Dale Electronics, 

Inc.

40 As a result, we determine that our holding in Reutzel has 

been superseded by statute and our holding in Dale Electronics, 

Inc. again has merit.

FNB also references Haber in support of its jurisdictional 

argument. However, Haber is not informative, insofar as it 

is procedurally distinguished. In Haber, the appellant filed 

a notice of appeal after the court had overruled one party’s 

motion for new trial and partially overruled the other party’s 

38 § 25-1912(2) (Reissue 1995) (emphasis supplied).

39 Reutzel, supra note 22.

40 Dale Electronics, Inc., supra note 34.
- 645 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

296 Nebraska Report

CLARKE v. FIRST NAT. BANK OF OMAHA

Cite as 296 Neb. 632

motion for new trial.41 We held that the notice of appeal was 

of no effect because the court had not finally disposed of all 

postjudgment motions. There was no claim that the court had 

announced its final disposition of the motion for new trial 

before the notice of appeal was filed.

[19,20] Further, it is the appellant’s burden to create a record 

for the appellate court which supports the errors assigned.42

This burden also requires that the record establish the appellate 

court’s basis for jurisdiction over the appeal.43 Additionally, a 

party’s brief may not expand the evidentiary record.44

Here, Graham argues that the savings clause treats his notice 

of appeal as filed on the date of the court’s entry overruling his 

postjudgment motion, February 12, 2016. The only evidence in 

the record that an announcement was made was the “Affidavit

in Opposition” to Clarke’s motion for summary dismissal filed 

by Graham’s counsel. This affidavit indicates that between 

February 5 and 9, the paralegal for Graham’s counsel was 

informed by the bailiff that the motion for new trial would be 

overruled because a motion for new trial was not allowed to 

challenge a summary judgment.

The unsigned letter that Graham purportedly sent the court 

on February 11, 2016, contends that Graham’s attorney was 

told by the bailiff that his motion for new trial was not allowed 

to challenge a summary judgment. This correspondence is not 

evidence, as it was merely attached to the pleading filed in 

opposition to the motion for summary dismissal.

Graham also alleges, for the first time in his brief on appeal, 

that the date of the announcement was February 7 or 8, 2016. 

This statement from Graham’s brief may not expand the evidentiary record.

41 Haber, supra note 21.

42 In re Interest of Tyrone K., supra note 23.

43 Despain, supra note 6 (Cassel, J., concurring).

44 In re Estate of Baer, 273 Neb. 969, 735 N.W.2d 394 (2007).
- 646 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

296 Nebraska Report

CLARKE v. FIRST NAT. BANK OF OMAHA

Cite as 296 Neb. 632

We find that the record presented by Graham is insufficient to determine whether any statement made to him was 

made as an official announcement by the court. Therefore, 

we cannot determine that an announcement was made which 

was sufficient to invoke the savings clause of § 25-1912(3) 

(Reissue 2016).

CONCLUSION

Because Graham filed his notice of appeal before the court 

ruled on his timely motion to alter or amend the judgment, 

his notice of appeal was without effect. Therefore, we dismiss 

this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Appeal dismisse

Miller-Lerman, J., not participat