Upah v. Ancona Bros. Co., S-93-729
| Court | Supreme Court of Nebraska |
| Citation | 521 N.W.2d 906,246 Neb. 608 |
| Docket Number | No. S-93-729,S-93-729 |
| Parties | Josephine UPAH, Appellee, v. ANCONA BROS. CO. et al., Appellants. |
| Decision Date | 23 September 1994 |
Syllabus by the Court
Judgments: Appeal and Error. Generally, an order, judgment, or proceeding dependent on, or ancillary and accessory to, a judgment, order, or decree which is reversed shares its fate and falls with it.
Jerrold L. Strasheim and Mary L. Swick, of Baird, Holm, McEachen, Pedersen, Hamann & Strasheim, Omaha, for appellant Ancona Bros. Co.
Fredric H. Kauffman and Gregory S. Heier, of Cline, Williams, Wright, Johnson & Oldfather, Lincoln, Allen E. Daubman, of Koley, Jessen, Daubman & Rupiper, P.C.; and Thomas R. Burke and Raymond E. Walden, of Kennedy, Holland, DeLacy & Svoboda, Omaha, for appellants Samuel A. Ancona, Joseph I. Ancona, and Carl Ancona.
William Jay Riley, Daniel J. Wintz, and Gerald L. Friedrichsen, of Fitzgerald, Schorr, Barmettler & Brennan, P.C., Omaha, for appellee.
This case involves the attempts of the plaintiff, Josephine (Ancona) Upah, to collect on a $3,766,000 judgment awarded to her against the individual defendants, Samuel A. Ancona, Joseph I. Ancona, and Carl Ancona, and the corporate defendant, Ancona Bros. Co. (Company). The judgment of $3,766,000 entered against the defendants was not superseded and has not been satisfied.
The defendants' appeal from that judgment to this court resulted in a reversal of the judgment, and the cause was remanded for further proceedings against Samuel A. Ancona and Joseph I. Ancona with respect to the plaintiff's claim that they transferred 244 3/4 shares from the Charles Ancona trust to the Company and then reissued those shares to themselves and Carl Ancona without any notification to the plaintiff and without any consideration being transferred to the trust. See Upah v. Ancona Bros. Co., 246 Neb. 585, 521 N.W.2d 895 (1994).
In the present case, the individual defendants appealed from separate orders of the district court granting the plaintiff's motions for orders in aid of execution. The orders directed that when any property or money is distributed to or for the benefit of the individual defendants from the Company's profit-sharing plan, such property or money shall be applied by the individual defendants toward satisfaction of the judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gary's Implement Inc. v. Bridgeport Tractor Parts Inc., S–10–122.
...355 (2005). FN2. Gary's Implement v. Bridgeport Tractor Parts, 270 Neb. 337, 701 N.W.2d 367 (2005) (citing Upah v. Ancona Bros. Co., 246 Neb. 608, 521 N.W.2d 906 (1994), and Luschen Bldg. Assn. v. Fleming Cos., 226 Neb. 840, 415 N.W.2d 453 (1987)). FN3. Gary's I, supra note 1. FN4. Gary's I......
-
State v. Loyd, S-04-534.
...by the order that is the subject of the appeal. Tom-Wat, Inc. v. Fink, 741 N.E.2d 343 (Ind. 2001). Cf., Upah v. Ancona Bros. Co., 246 Neb. 608, 521 N.W.2d 906 (1994); In Matter of Estate of Ruediger, 83 Wis. 2d 109, 264 N.W.2d 604 (1978). But that jurisdiction does not extend to issues that......
-
Northern Bank v. Dowd, S-95-1059
...necessarily follows that the summary judgment herein in favor of Northern must also be reversed. As observed in Upah v. Ancona Bros. Co., 246 Neb. 608, 610, 521 N.W.2d 906, 907 (1994): "Generally, an order, judgment, or proceeding dependent on, or ancillary and accessory to, a judgment, ord......
-
National Account Systems of Lincoln, Inc. v. Vergith, S-92-989
...... Lindsay Mfg. Co. v. Universal Surety Co., 246 Neb. 495, 519 N.W.2d 530 ......