Opinion ID: 1935867
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Appeal of the Defendant Robert Lucas

Text: At the close of the plaintiff's case, Lucas moved to dismiss. The motion was renewed at the end of the trial. The court took the motion under advisement and on April 10, 1972, made the following notation in the Journal: Motion of Evelyn Lucas and Robert Lucas to dismiss is sustained. The plaintiff filed a motion for new trial on April 18, 1972, assigning as error the sustention of the motion to dismiss. On April 20, 1972, the court took this motion for new trial under advisement. On April 24, 1972, the court entered the decree on the merits which included the following: All amounts now in the possession of Robert Lucas and/or Patricia Lucas acting individually or under the name of their alter ego, R. Frederick II and Associates, shall be subject to immediate garnishment by plaintiff as amounts owing Micro Data Corporation. . . . Robert Lucas shall account for and repay all and any amounts paid on his behalf to the Omaha National Bank by Micro Data to plaintiff with legal interest, thereon, from the date of payment; such to be applied toward the satisfaction of the judgment debt of Charles C. Lukovsky. . . . The Court has determined that insufficient evidence exists to establish that the proceeds of sale of the Lucas farm are now in the hands of Robert Lucas; however, this determination is without prejudice to any application which may be filed or any action for accounting which may be brought against Patricia Lucas, individually or acting under the name of R. Frederick II and Associates, Ltd. The Court would also acknowledge its reluctance in holding that a failure of proof exists inasmuch as the dismissal of Robert Lucas on this portion is based upon the state of the record only, and not upon the personal belief of the Court. On April 26, 1972, Robert Lucas and Evelyn Lucas and Micro Data filed motions for new trial. On April 28, 1972, the plaintiff renewed its motion for a new trial. On May 1, 1972, the court overruled all the motions. Micro Data thereafter filed notice of appeal. Robert Lucas filed notice of appeal. The plaintiff at the appropriate time perfected its cross-appeal by filing the necessary brief in accordance with the rules of this court. Revised Rules of the Supreme Court, 1971, Rules 1, subd. d and 8, subd. b(3). Robert Lucas argues that he was finally dismissed from the case by the entry of the dismissal on the journal on April 10, 1972; that there has been no appeal by the plaintiff from the order overruling the plaintiff's motion for a new trial; that therefore the order of dismissal of April 10, 1972, was a several judgment in his favor and is final; and that this court has no jurisdiction so far as Robert Lucas is concerned. Lucas cites sections 25-1301 and 25-1303, R.R.S.1943. He also relies upon the recent decision of this court in Green v. Village of Terrytown, 188 Neb. 840, 199 N.W.2d 611. Lucas says the terms of the decree insofar as they affect him are inconsistent with the order of dismissal which had become final. Plaintiff argues there is no inconsistency and that an oral colloquy (included in the bill of exceptions) between the court and plaintiff's counsel at the time the entry was made on the journal on April 10, 1972, indicates the dismissal was intended to apply only to the transfer of the Evelyn Lucas property and that the decree simply clarifies this. We do not need to choose between these theories. The plaintiff filed a motion for new trial on April 18, 1972, and renewed it on April 28, 1972. The order of dismissal of April 10, 1972, whether intended by the court to apply to just the Evelyn Lucas transaction or also to the Micro Data transfers had not become final because the motion for new trial had been timely filed and not yet ruled on. This was not the situation in Green v. Village of Terrytown, supra, where either no motion for new trial was filed at all, or if it was, it had been ruled on and no appeal was perfected by anyone before the time for appeal had expired. That is not this case. The trial court had jurisdiction both because the matter was pending on motion for new trial and because it had an inherent power to vacate or modify its decree within the term. Buchanan v. Buchanan, 186 Neb. 89, 180 N.W.2d 886; Beliveau v. Goodrich, 185 Neb. 98, 173 N.W.2d 877; Colby v. Maw, 1 Neb.Unoff. 478, 95 N.W. 677; Weber v. Kirkendall, 44 Neb. 766, 63 N.W. 35. We do not mean to imply, however, that an order vacating a dismissal of a party could be entered within the term under the inherent power without notice to the party. The position of Robert Lucas that the order of dismissal as to him had become a final judgment in his favor is not well taken. It follows that since Robert Lucas has appealed from the decree of April 24, 1972, the cross-appeal of the plaintiff is properly here under the rules of this court previously cited.