Lindsay Internat. Sales & Serv. v. Wegener , 301 Neb. 1 ( 2018 )


Menu:
  • Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
    www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
    11/02/2018 01:12 AM CDT
    -1-
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    301 Nebraska R eports
    LINDSAY INTERNAT. SALES & SERV. v. WEGENER
    Cite as 
    301 Neb. 1
    Lindsay International Sales & Service, LLC, appellee,
    v. M ichael J. Wegener , an individual, and
    Jerome Pribil, an individual, appellants.
    ___ N.W.2d ___
    Filed September 7, 2018.   No. S-16-1051.
    1.	 Directed Verdict: Appeal and Error. In reviewing a trial court’s rul-
    ing on a motion for directed verdict, an appellate court must treat the
    motion as an admission of the truth of all competent evidence submit-
    ted on behalf of the party against whom the motion is directed; such
    being the case, the party against whom the motion is directed is entitled
    to have every controverted fact resolved in its favor and to have the
    benefit of every inference which can reasonably be deduced from
    the evidence.
    2.	 Directed Verdict: Evidence. A directed verdict is proper at the close
    of all the evidence only when reasonable minds cannot differ and can
    draw but one conclusion from the evidence, that is, when an issue
    should be decided as a matter of law.
    3.	 Jury Instructions. Whether a jury instruction is correct is a question
    of law.
    4.	 Judgments: Appeal and Error. When reviewing questions of law, an
    appellate court has an obligation to resolve the questions independently
    of the conclusion reached by the trial court.
    5.	 Rules of Evidence. In proceedings where the Nebraska Evidence Rules
    apply, the admissibility of evidence is controlled by such rules; judicial
    discretion is involved only when the rules make discretion a factor in
    determining admissibility.
    6.	 Trial: Evidence: Appeal and Error. A trial court has the discretion to
    determine the relevancy and admissibility of evidence, and such deter-
    minations will not be disturbed on appeal unless they constitute an abuse
    of that discretion.
    7.	 Judges: Words and Phrases. A judicial abuse of discretion exists if
    the reasons or rulings of a trial judge are clearly untenable, unfairly
    -2-
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    301 Nebraska R eports
    LINDSAY INTERNAT. SALES & SERV. v. WEGENER
    Cite as 
    301 Neb. 1
    depriving a litigant of a substantial right and denying just results in mat-
    ters submitted for disposition.
    8.	 Motions for New Trial: Appeal and Error. An appellate court reviews
    a denial of a motion for new trial for an abuse of discretion.
    9.	 Contracts: Words and Phrases. A lack of consideration means no
    contract is ever formed because no consideration exists or none was
    intended to pass. A failure of consideration, on the other hand, means
    the contract is valid when formed but becomes unenforceable because
    the performance bargained for has not been given.
    10.	 Directed Verdict: Appeal and Error. When it follows logically from
    a jury’s findings that a theory on which a directed verdict was granted
    could not have been successful, the directed verdict cannot be said to
    have affected the outcome and is, at most, harmless error.
    11.	 Trial: Evidence. Evidence that is irrelevant is inadmissible.
    12.	 Evidence. Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make the
    existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of
    the action more probable or less probable than it would be without
    the evidence.
    13.	 ____. Relevancy requires only that the degree of probativeness be some-
    thing more than nothing.
    Appeal from the District Court for Platte County: Robert R.
    Steinke, Judge. Affirmed.
    Stephen L. Ahl and Krista M. Carlson, of Wolfe, Snowden,
    Hurd, Luers & Ahl, L.L.P., and Barry D. Geweke, of Stowell &
    Geweke, P.C., L.L.O., for appellants.
    John M. Lingelbach and John V. Matson, of Koley Jessen,
    P.C., L.L.O., for appellee.
    Heavican, C.J., Cassel, Stacy, Funke, and Papik, JJ., and
    Schreiner, District Judge.
    Papik, J.
    Lindsay International Sales & Service, LLC (Lindsay),
    sued Michael J. Wegener and Jerome Pribil in the district
    court for Platte County to collect amounts Lindsay claimed
    were due on personal guaranties. The district court granted
    Lindsay’s motion for a directed verdict on certain affirmative
    defenses raised by Wegener and Pribil and instructed the jury
    -3-
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    301 Nebraska R eports
    LINDSAY INTERNAT. SALES & SERV. v. WEGENER
    Cite as 
    301 Neb. 1
    accordingly. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Lindsay
    for the full amount sought. Wegener and Pribil now appeal.
    They challenge the directed verdict, the jury instructions, the
    admission of evidence concerning their personal finances, and
    the denial of their motion for new trial. Finding no reversible
    error, we affirm.
    BACKGROUND
    Initial Discussions Between Wegener,
    Pribil, and Lindsay.
    This case has its genesis in Wegener and Pribil’s participa-
    tion in an agricultural business venture in Mexico. Wegener
    and Pribil and another individual, Isaak Wall, also known as
    Isaak Wall Vogt, formed a business entity in Mexico called
    Ko’ol Agricola S.P.R. de R.L. de C.V. (Ko’ol Ag). Wegener,
    Pribil, and Wall planned to have Ko’ol Ag purchase or lease
    land in Mexico and raise crops there.
    Wegener, Pribil, and Wall planned to take advantage of
    their respective backgrounds to operate Ko’ol Ag. Because
    Wall had ownership interests in at least two agricultural equip-
    ment dealers and ties to Mexico, he would be responsible
    for obtaining and setting up irrigation pivots on behalf of
    Ko’ol Ag. Wegener and Pribil, both of whom conduct farming
    operations in Nebraska, would provide the finances and farm-
    ing expertise.
    Beginning in November 2012, Wegener and Pribil had dis-
    cussions with agents of Lindsay about purchasing pivots for
    the farming operation in Mexico. Wegener and Pribil indicated
    their desired terms for the purchase of pivots. The global direc-
    tor of credit for Lindsay’s parent company told Wegener and
    Pribil that to obtain those terms from Lindsay, they would need
    to provide personal financial statements and provide personal
    guaranties for the amount owed for the pivots.
    Wegener and Pribil also contend that Lindsay made rep-
    resentations to them about Wall and one of the equipment
    dealers in which he had an ownership interest, IJS Irrigation,
    LLC (IJS). The record contains varying accounts of those
    -4-
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    301 Nebraska R eports
    LINDSAY INTERNAT. SALES & SERV. v. WEGENER
    Cite as 
    301 Neb. 1
    representations. According to Wegener and Pribil, they were
    told that the pivots should be sold through IJS and that Wall
    and IJS were trustworthy and suitable partners for Wegener and
    Pribil in the pivot transaction.
    Wegener and Pribil Agree to
    Personal Guaranties.
    In December 2012, Wegener and Pribil provided personal
    guaranties to Lindsay. The agreements identified IJS as the
    principal debtor by describing the debt for which Wegener
    and Pribil were providing guaranties as follows: “For and
    in consideration of any existing indebtedness to [Lindsay]
    of IJS Irrigation, LLC invoices referencing customer KO’OL
    AGRICOLA S.P.R. de R.L. de C.V.”
    In the guaranties, Wegener and Pribil agreed to guarantee the
    payment of any of the above-described debt in accordance with
    the terms of any agreement between the principal debtor and
    Lindsay. They also agreed that in the event of a default by the
    debtor, Lindsay would not be required to proceed first against
    the debtor, but could immediately proceed against them.
    Pivots Are Ordered and Shipped.
    After the parties executed the guaranty agreements, Lindsay
    received orders for 16 complete pivots. Neither Wegener nor
    Pribil placed the orders. Wegener believed that they were
    placed by Wall.
    The resulting invoices issued by Lindsay indicated that the
    pivots were sold to IJS. The invoices referenced Ko’ol Ag in
    the item description. While the parties agree that the pivots
    were all shipped to the same shipping warehouse in Florida,
    they dispute whether all of the pivots were actually trans-
    ferred to IJS. Pointing to some bills of lading that do not list
    the recipient of the pivot as IJS, Wegener and Pribil contend
    that some of the pivots were transferred to other entities. And
    while it is undisputed that at least some of the pivots made it to
    Mexico, Wegener and Pribil assert that none of the pivots were
    placed on Ko’ol Ag’s land.
    -5-
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    301 Nebraska R eports
    LINDSAY INTERNAT. SALES & SERV. v. WEGENER
    Cite as 
    301 Neb. 1
    Dispute Arises Over Payment.
    Months after the pivots were shipped, Wegener and Pribil
    sent letters to Lindsay attempting to cancel the guaranty agree-
    ments. Lindsay responded by demanding payment.
    When Lindsay did not receive payment, it filed suit against
    Wegener and Pribil. Lindsay alleged that it sold IJS goods for
    the Ko’ol Ag account on credit, that IJS had defaulted in the
    amount of $1,019,795.38, and that Wegener and Pribil were
    obligated to cover the IJS debt.
    Wegener and Pribil denied that they were obligated to pay
    and asserted a number of affirmative defenses including false
    representation, fraud in the inducement, failure of consid-
    eration, impairment of collateral, deprivation of the right to
    be subrogated to the benefit of all security, and violation of
    Nebraska’s Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA),
    Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 87-301 to 87-306 (Reissue 2014). The mat-
    ter proceeded to a jury trial.
    Trial.
    At trial, the parties presented the evidence recounted above
    and the district court received Wegener’s and Pribil’s financial
    statements, over their relevance objections. After Wegener and
    Pribil rested their case, Lindsay moved for a directed verdict
    on Wegener and Pribil’s affirmative defenses. The district
    court granted a directed verdict to Lindsay on the affirma-
    tive defenses of failure of consideration, impairment of col-
    lateral, deprivation of the right to be subrogated to the benefit
    of all security, and the UDTPA. The district court overruled
    Lindsay’s request for a directed verdict on the defenses of false
    representation and fraud in the inducement.
    As requested by Wegener and Pribil, the district court
    instructed the jury on the affirmative defense of material
    misrepresentation. Also at Wegener and Pribil’s request, it
    instructed the jury that Lindsay was entitled to recover only
    “the total amount you determine is owed and unpaid on the
    IJS indebtedness for the pivots.” But in accordance with the
    directed verdict, the district court declined to submit Wegener
    -6-
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    301 Nebraska R eports
    LINDSAY INTERNAT. SALES & SERV. v. WEGENER
    Cite as 
    301 Neb. 1
    and Pribil’s proposed instruction on the definition of fraud
    under the UDTPA.
    In closing arguments, counsel for Wegener and Pribil
    argued, among other things, that the evidence showed IJS did
    not receive all of the pivots and that thus, Wegener and Pribil
    could not be liable for the full amount claimed by Lindsay.
    The jury, however, returned a unanimous verdict in favor
    of Lindsay for $1,019,795.38, the full amount owing on the
    invoices. The district court ultimately entered a judgment on
    the jury verdict.
    Following the verdict, Wegener and Pribil moved for a new
    trial. They alleged irregularities in the proceedings that pre-
    vented a fair trial, excessive damages resulting from passion
    or prejudice, error in assessing the amount of recovery, insuf-
    ficient evidence to support the verdict, and error of law at trial.
    The district court ultimately overruled the motion.
    Wegener and Pribil now appeal. We have determined that
    Wegener and Pribil’s notice of appeal was timely filed. See
    Lindsay Internat. Sales & Serv. v. Wegener, 
    297 Neb. 788
    , 
    901 N.W.2d 278
    (2017).
    ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
    Wegener and Pribil assign the following errors, condensed,
    restated, and reordered: The district court erred (1) in directing
    a verdict for Lindsay on the affirmative defense of impair-
    ment of collateral, (2) in directing a verdict for Lindsay on the
    affirm­ative defense of failure of consideration, (3) in directing
    a verdict for Lindsay on the affirmative defense of violation of
    the UDTPA, (4) in failing to give their proposed jury instruc-
    tion regarding the UDTPA, (5) in admitting evidence of their
    personal financial conditions, and (6) in failing to grant their
    motion for new trial.
    STANDARD OF REVIEW
    [1,2] In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion for
    directed verdict, an appellate court must treat the motion as an
    admission of the truth of all competent evidence submitted on
    -7-
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    301 Nebraska R eports
    LINDSAY INTERNAT. SALES & SERV. v. WEGENER
    Cite as 
    301 Neb. 1
    behalf of the party against whom the motion is directed; such
    being the case, the party against whom the motion is directed
    is entitled to have every controverted fact resolved in its favor
    and to have the benefit of every inference which can reason-
    ably be deduced from the evidence. Armstrong v. Clarkson
    College, 
    297 Neb. 595
    , 
    901 N.W.2d 1
    (2017). A directed ver-
    dict is proper at the close of all the evidence only when rea-
    sonable minds cannot differ and can draw but one conclusion
    from the evidence, that is, when an issue should be decided as
    a matter of law. 
    Id. [3,4] Whether
    a jury instruction is correct is a question of
    law. Rodriguez v. Surgical Assocs., 
    298 Neb. 573
    , 
    905 N.W.2d 247
    (2018). When reviewing questions of law, an appellate
    court has an obligation to resolve the questions independently
    of the conclusion reached by the trial court. 
    Id. [5,6] In
    proceedings where the Nebraska Evidence Rules
    apply, the admissibility of evidence is controlled by such
    rules; judicial discretion is involved only when the rules
    make discretion a factor in determining admissibility. 
    Id. A trial
    court has the discretion to determine the relevancy and
    admissibility of evidence, and such determinations will not
    be disturbed on appeal unless they constitute an abuse of that
    discretion. 
    Id. [7] A
    judicial abuse of discretion exists if the reasons or
    rulings of a trial judge are clearly untenable, unfairly depriv-
    ing a litigant of a substantial right and denying just results in
    matters submitted for disposition. 
    Id. [8] An
    appellate court reviews a denial of a motion for new
    trial for an abuse of discretion. Facilities Cost Mgmt. Group v.
    Otoe Cty. Sch. Dist., 
    298 Neb. 777
    , 
    906 N.W.2d 1
    (2018).
    ANALYSIS
    Impairment of Collateral
    Affirmative Defense.
    In the section of their operative answer listing affirma-
    tive defenses, Wegener and Pribil alleged that they should
    be released from liability under the “impairment of collateral
    -8-
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    301 Nebraska R eports
    LINDSAY INTERNAT. SALES & SERV. v. WEGENER
    Cite as 
    301 Neb. 1
    doctrine” and as a result of Lindsay’s acts that deprived them
    “of their right to be subrogated to the benefit of all security.”
    The district court granted Lindsay a directed verdict on these
    affirmative defenses. Wegener and Pribil contend it should not
    have done so.
    As the following discussion will demonstrate, the concepts
    Wegener and Pribil asserted as separate affirmative defenses
    and argue separately on appeal are actually part and parcel
    of the same affirmative defense. For reasons we will explain,
    we find that this defense could not apply in these circum-
    stances, and thus, the district court correctly granted Lindsay a
    directed verdict.
    This court has previously recognized that a guarantor can
    be released from liability as a result of a creditor’s actions or
    omissions that impair collateral securing the principal debt at
    issue. See, e.g., Custom Leasing, Inc. v. Carlson Stapler &
    Shippers Supply, Inc., 
    195 Neb. 292
    , 
    237 N.W.2d 645
    (1976).
    We have previously referred to the defense as “impairment of
    collateral.” Builders Supply Co. v. Czerwinski, 
    275 Neb. 622
    ,
    635, 
    748 N.W.2d 645
    , 656 (2008).
    The impairment of collateral defense has its roots in the
    guarantor’s subrogation right to collateral securing the under-
    lying debt. See Custom Leasing, 
    Inc., supra
    . That is, if the
    principal debtor fails to meet its obligation in such a transac-
    tion and the creditor enforces the guaranty, “a guarantor has
    the right to step into the shoes of the creditor and sue the
    debtor for collateral securing the debt.” See Century 21 Prods.
    v. Glacier Sales, 
    129 Wash. 2d 406
    , 412, 
    918 P.2d 168
    , 170
    (1996). Because acts or omissions of the creditor that result in
    the collateral’s unavailability deprive the guarantor of its right
    of subrogation, a guarantor is generally released by such acts
    or omissions. See Custom Leasing, 
    Inc., 195 Neb. at 299
    , 237
    N.W.2d at 649 (“[w]hether the guarantor is entitled to a full
    discharge or only pro tanto, it is released from its liability to
    the extent of the injury caused by the willful or negligent acts
    of [the creditor]”).
    -9-
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    301 Nebraska R eports
    LINDSAY INTERNAT. SALES & SERV. v. WEGENER
    Cite as 
    301 Neb. 1
    If its name were not enough, the preceding discussion
    should make clear that in order for the impairment of col-
    lateral defense to apply, the underlying debt must be secured
    by collateral. See, e.g., Myers v. Bank of Niobrara, 
    215 Neb. 29
    , 31-32, 
    336 N.W.2d 608
    , 610 (1983) (“[i]t may be
    true that if a secured party . . . impairs a guarantor’s abil-
    ity to satisfy any obligation arising under the agreement of
    guaranty by releasing the collateral securing that loan, said
    guarantor’s obligation is then released”) (emphasis supplied);
    Restatement (Third) of Suretyship and Guaranty § 42 at 190
    (1996) (recognizing that defense is available “[i]f the under-
    lying obligation is secured by a security interest in collateral
    and the obligee impairs the value of that interest”) (emphasis
    supplied). If the debt is not secured, there is no collateral
    to impair and no subrogation right to protect. See Estate
    of Muscato v. Northwest Nat’l Bk., 
    181 Ill. App. 3d 44
    , 48,
    
    536 N.E.2d 872
    , 875, 
    129 Ill. Dec. 822
    , 825 (1989) (“[i]t is
    axiomatic that because the loan was unsecured, no collateral
    could have been impaired”).
    Wegener and Pribil could not successfully assert the impair-
    ment of collateral defense because it is available only when
    the guarantor has a subrogation right to collateral. There is
    no evidence that Lindsay had a security interest in the pivots,
    and Wegener and Pribil do not even attempt to argue that such
    evidence exists.
    Because there is no evidence that collateral was to secure
    the underlying debt, the principal cases Wegener and Pribil
    rely upon in support of their argument that the district court
    erred by directing a verdict on their impairment of collateral
    defense are inapplicable. In those cases, a creditor either
    impaired or failed to acquire a security interest as required by
    a contract, to the ultimate detriment of the guarantor. See, e.g.,
    National Bank of Commerce Trust & Sav. Assn. v. Katleman,
    
    201 Neb. 165
    , 
    266 N.W.2d 736
    (1978); Custom Leasing, 
    Inc., supra
    . In this case, however, the transaction did not involve
    a security interest. As a result, the impairment of collateral
    - 10 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    301 Nebraska R eports
    LINDSAY INTERNAT. SALES & SERV. v. WEGENER
    Cite as 
    301 Neb. 1
    defense could not apply and the district court correctly granted
    a directed verdict for Lindsay.
    Failure of Consideration
    Affirmative Defense.
    Wegener and Pribil also contend that the district court erred
    by granting Lindsay a directed verdict on their affirmative
    defense of failure of consideration. Again, we find no basis to
    reverse the district court’s decision.
    Wegener and Pribil argue that there was a failure of consid-
    eration in that the pivots Lindsay agreed to sell were not trans-
    ferred to the entity that purchased them. Specifically, Wegener
    and Pribil contend that because Lindsay failed to perform its
    obligations to the principal debtor, the consideration failed and
    Wegener and Pribil’s obligations under the guaranties were
    eliminated or at least diminished.
    [9] Lindsay responds that there was sufficient consideration
    for the guaranties because Lindsay extended credit to IJS in
    reliance on Wegener’s and Pribil’s promises to pay if IJS did
    not. Lindsay’s response appears to confuse “failure of consid-
    eration” with the separate concept of “lack of consideration.”
    “A lack of consideration means no contract is ever formed
    because no consideration exists or none was intended to pass.”
    Federal Land Bank of Omaha v. Woods, 
    480 N.W.2d 61
    , 66
    (Iowa 1992). A failure of consideration, on the other hand,
    “means the contract is valid when formed but becomes unen-
    forceable because the performance bargained for has not been
    given.” 
    Id. See, also,
    3 Richard A. Lord, A Treatise on the Law
    of Contracts by Samuel Williston § 7.11 (4th ed. 2008) (distin-
    guishing these concepts).
    Some courts have recognized that a guarantor can avoid
    liability on a guaranty through the affirmative defense of
    failure of consideration by showing that the creditor failed
    to render the performance for which the guarantor agreed to
    guarantee payment. See, e.g., Walcutt v. Clevite Corporation,
    
    13 N.Y.2d 48
    , 
    191 N.E.2d 894
    , 
    241 N.Y.S.2d 834
    (1963).
    - 11 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    301 Nebraska R eports
    LINDSAY INTERNAT. SALES & SERV. v. WEGENER
    Cite as 
    301 Neb. 1
    Wegener and Pribil claim these circumstances are present
    here, and they make alternative arguments as to why that is
    the case.
    First, they argue that there was a failure of consideration
    because Lindsay did not transfer the pivots to Ko’ol Ag. We
    reject this argument at the outset. Both the guaranties them-
    selves and the invoices indicate that IJS was the debtor, not
    Ko’ol Ag. Lindsay did not have an obligation to transfer the
    pivots directly to Ko’ol Ag, and thus, Wegener and Pribil can-
    not premise a failure of consideration defense on any failure to
    effectuate such a transfer.
    The alternative failure of consideration argument Wegener
    and Pribil assert is that the consideration failed because some
    pivots were not delivered to IJS. Because IJS was the principal
    debtor in the transaction, the claim that the consideration failed
    because IJS did not receive pivots on which Lindsay now
    seeks payment cannot be dismissed so quickly. Furthermore,
    there was some evidence introduced at trial—bills of lading
    for a few of the pivots that listed entities other than IJS as the
    recipient and testimony about at least one pivot’s having borne
    a stamp suggesting it was sold to another entity—that Wegener
    and Pribil can point to in support of their argument that IJS did
    not receive the pivots.
    The evidence summarized above, coupled with the require-
    ment that we draw all inferences in favor of Wegener and
    Pribil in reviewing the grant of a directed verdict, might
    suggest grounds for reversal if it were not for the fact that
    Wegener and Pribil already presented these very arguments
    to the jury and the jury rejected them. While the district court
    granted Lindsay a directed verdict on the failure of consid-
    eration affirmative defense, as noted above, Wegener and
    Pribil asked for and received a jury instruction that Lindsay
    was entitled to recover “the total amount you determine is
    owed and unpaid on the IJS indebtedness for the pivots.”
    Counsel for Wegener and Pribil contended that this instruc-
    tion was justified by evidence suggesting some pivots were
    - 12 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    301 Nebraska R eports
    LINDSAY INTERNAT. SALES & SERV. v. WEGENER
    Cite as 
    301 Neb. 1
    not transferred to IJS and stated that the proposed instruc-
    tion “goes back to [Wegener and Pribil’s] defense of failure
    of consideration.”
    Not only did Wegener and Pribil convince the court that
    the jury should be instructed that they were liable only to the
    extent IJS was indebted to Lindsay; their counsel devoted
    extensive time in closing argument to the contention that some
    of the pivots were not transferred to IJS and asked the jury not
    to make Wegener and Pribil pay for pivots IJS did not even
    receive. The jury’s award of damages in favor of Lindsay for
    the full amount claimed demonstrates that it rejected this argu-
    ment. Under these circumstances, we find that the award of a
    directed verdict on the failure of consideration defense was, at
    most, harmless error.
    It does not appear that a Nebraska appellate court has
    previously found that the grant of a partial directed verdict
    could amount to harmless error. However, we have held that
    a summary judgment can be harmless error when viewed in
    light of a jury’s subsequent findings. In Smith v. Colorado
    Organ Recovery Sys., 
    269 Neb. 578
    , 
    694 N.W.2d 610
    (2005),
    a patient claimed, among other things, that an organ recovery
    service had acted negligently in not reviewing donor records
    and failing to inform the medical center that a certain pre-
    servative had been used. The district court granted summary
    judgment in favor of the recovery service. Upon the patient’s
    appeal, we reasoned that any error in granting summary judg-
    ment was harmless, because the jury specially found no proxi-
    mate cause as to one defendant and the jury’s special finding
    on proximate cause was equally applicable to the organ recov-
    ery service.
    [10] We find this reasoning in Smith instructive in the
    instant case and hold that when it follows logically from a
    jury’s findings that a theory on which a directed verdict was
    granted could not have been successful, the directed verdict
    cannot be said to have affected the outcome and is, at most,
    harmless error. A number of cases from other jurisdictions
    - 13 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    301 Nebraska R eports
    LINDSAY INTERNAT. SALES & SERV. v. WEGENER
    Cite as 
    301 Neb. 1
    have recognized and applied this principle. See, e.g., Goulet
    v. New Penn Motor Exp., Inc., 
    512 F.3d 34
    (1st Cir. 2008);
    Earle v. Benoit, 
    850 F.2d 836
    (1st Cir. 1988); Janich Bros.,
    Inc. v. American Distilling Co., 
    570 F.2d 848
    (9th Cir. 1977);
    St. Germain v. Husqvarna Corp., 
    544 A.2d 1283
    (Me. 1988);
    Steffensen v. Smith’s Management Corp., 
    820 P.2d 482
    (Utah
    App. 1991). See, also, Russell v. May, 
    306 Kan. 1058
    , 
    400 P.3d 647
    (2017) (employing same analysis as cases above but find-
    ing error not harmless in that case).
    In this case, we find that the jury’s verdict would not have
    differed if a directed verdict had not been granted on the fail-
    ure of consideration affirmative defense. By instructing the
    jury that Wegener and Pribil were liable only to the extent IJS
    was indebted to Lindsay, the district court required the jury
    to consider the very issue raised by the failure of consider-
    ation defense—whether IJS received the pivots and was thus
    indebted to Lindsay. If anything, the district court relieved
    Wegener and Pribil of the burden of proving their failure of
    consideration defense by embedding it within the amount
    Lindsay was owed, an issue on which Lindsay bore the burden
    of proof. Even after Wegener and Pribil argued that IJS did not
    receive all the pivots, however, the jury awarded Lindsay the
    full amount Lindsay claimed.
    The jury clearly rejected the notion that IJS did not receive
    the pivots and was thus indebted to Lindsay for less than the
    full amount claimed. In doing so, the jury rejected the sub-
    stance of the failure of consideration defense. The failure of
    consideration affirmative defense would not have succeeded
    even if the directed verdict had not been granted. The directed
    verdict is thus, at most, harmless rather than reversible error.
    Uniform Deceptive Trade
    Practices Act.
    We now turn to Wegener and Pribil’s claim that the district
    court erred by finding that a particular section of Nebraska’s
    UDTPA was not a valid defense to Lindsay’s claim. They
    - 14 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    301 Nebraska R eports
    LINDSAY INTERNAT. SALES & SERV. v. WEGENER
    Cite as 
    301 Neb. 1
    argue that Lindsay violated the UDTPA by fraudulently
    inducing them to sign the guaranty agreements through mis-
    leading representations about IJS. We find that the district
    court did not err by granting Lindsay a directed verdict on
    this issue.
    Wegener and Pribil sought to implement the defense set
    forth in § 87-303.07:
    If a buyer or lessee is induced by [a deceptive trade
    practice] to enter into a sale or lease, the agreement is
    unenforceable by the seller or lessor and the buyer or
    lessee, at his or her option, may rescind the agreement
    or retain the merchandise delivered and the benefit of
    any services performed without any obligation to pay
    for them.
    As the district court pointed out, this section protects a
    “buyer” or a “lessee.” A familiar canon of statutory con-
    struction—expressio unius est exclusio alterius—suggests that
    § 87-303.07 does not protect guarantors. The aforementioned
    canon recognizes that “an expressed object of a statute’s oper-
    ation excludes the statute’s operation on all other objects
    unmentioned by the statute.” Jacobson v. Shresta, 
    288 Neb. 615
    , 623, 
    849 N.W.2d 515
    , 521 (2014). Applying the principle
    here, the fact that § 87-303.07 specifically lists buyers and
    lessees as those protected leads us to conclude that other cat-
    egories of individuals—such as guarantors like Wegener and
    Pribil—are not.
    After determining that § 87-303.07 protected only buyers
    and lessees, the district court went on to discuss our opinion
    in Mutual of Omaha Bank v. Murante, 
    285 Neb. 747
    , 
    829 N.W.2d 676
    (2013). In that case, we held that certain defenses
    are personal to the principal debtor and thus a guarantor can-
    not escape liability by proving that the principal debtor is not
    liable pursuant to such a personal defense. The district court
    concluded that § 87-303.07 is such a personal defense and that
    thus, Wegener and Pribil, as guarantors, could not use it to
    avoid liability.
    - 15 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    301 Nebraska R eports
    LINDSAY INTERNAT. SALES & SERV. v. WEGENER
    Cite as 
    301 Neb. 1
    Whatever they may have been arguing before the district
    court, however, Wegener and Pribil do not make any argu-
    ment to us that the buyer was deceived by Lindsay. Both the
    guaranties and the invoices make clear that the buyer of the
    pivots was IJS. But Wegener and Pribil argue that they—
    guarantors—were deceived by Lindsay. For reasons set forth
    above, we have determined that § 87-303.07 offers no protec-
    tion to guarantors who claim to have been deceived. And since
    Wegener and Pribil make no argument to us that the buyer
    was deceived, it is not necessary for us to review whether
    § 87-303.07 is a personal defense that can be raised only by
    the principal debtor.
    Wegener and Pribil contend that they should have been per-
    mitted to proceed under § 87-303.07 notwithstanding the lim-
    ited language of the statute because a guarantor has a defense
    if fraudulently induced to enter into a guaranty. The only case
    they cite in support of this argument, however, is a case in
    which the guarantor asserted a general fraud in the induce-
    ment defense. See West v. Wegner, 
    172 Neb. 692
    , 
    111 N.W.2d 449
    (1961). Here, Wegener and Pribil’s allegations that they
    were induced into signing the guaranties by misrepresentations
    of Lindsay were submitted to the jury for consideration and
    rejected. In any event, the case Wegener and Pribil cite does
    not support the notion that they were also entitled to present an
    affirmative defense under § 87-303.07. We conclude that the
    district court did not err in determining that a defense pursuant
    to § 87-303.07 did not apply and in granting Lindsay’s motion
    for directed verdict on that defense.
    Because the evidence did not support the application of
    § 87-303.07, we also find that the district court did not err in
    rejecting the jury instructions tendered by Wegener and Pribil
    concerning the UDTPA. To establish reversible error from a
    court’s failure to give a requested jury instruction, an appellant
    has the burden to show, among other things, that the tendered
    instruction was warranted by the evidence. See Rodriguez v.
    Surgical Assocs., 
    298 Neb. 573
    , 
    905 N.W.2d 247
    (2018).
    - 16 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    301 Nebraska R eports
    LINDSAY INTERNAT. SALES & SERV. v. WEGENER
    Cite as 
    301 Neb. 1
    Admission of Financial Statements.
    Over Wegener and Pribil’s objections based on relevance,
    the district court received financial statements showing their
    net worth. Wegener and Pribil claim that the district court com-
    mitted reversible error by admitting this evidence, because it
    was not relevant to proving liability and was offered to preju-
    dice the jury against them and produce a higher award.
    In their brief, Wegener and Pribil argue that evidence of
    a defendant’s financial condition is not relevant. They also
    argue that admission of such evidence is prejudicial. At trial,
    however, Wegener and Pribil objected to the admission of their
    financial statements only on relevance grounds. Since a party
    may not assert a different ground for an objection to the admis-
    sion of evidence than was offered to the trial court, see Werner
    v. County of Platte, 
    284 Neb. 899
    , 
    824 N.W.2d 38
    (2012), our
    review is limited to determining whether the financial state-
    ments were relevant.
    [11-13] Evidence that is irrelevant is inadmissible. Neb.
    Evid. R. 402, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-402 (Reissue 2016);
    Richardson v. Children’s Hosp., 
    280 Neb. 396
    , 
    787 N.W.2d 235
    (2010). Evidence is relevant if it has “any tendency to
    make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the
    determination of the action more probable or less probable
    than it would be without the evidence.” Neb. Evid. R. 401,
    Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-401 (Reissue 2016). The bar for establish-
    ing evidentiary relevance is not a high one. Relevancy requires
    only that the probative value be “something more than noth-
    ing.” State v. Lavalleur, 
    289 Neb. 102
    , 115, 
    853 N.W.2d 203
    ,
    214 (2014).
    Wegener and Pribil argue that it has long been the law
    in Nebraska that evidence of financial standing of the par-
    ties is inadmissible. However, our jurisprudence does not
    completely bar evidence of financial standing. Rather, the
    relevance of such evidence is generally assessed on a case-
    by-case basis. See, e.g., Vacek v. Ames, 
    221 Neb. 333
    , 
    377 N.W.2d 86
    (1985).
    - 17 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    301 Nebraska R eports
    LINDSAY INTERNAT. SALES & SERV. v. WEGENER
    Cite as 
    301 Neb. 1
    As Lindsay points out, the fact that Lindsay received
    financial statements of Wegener and Pribil and relied upon
    them in deciding to extend credit to IJS would be helpful to
    educate the jury on the background of the transaction. But
    Wegener and Pribil’s real objection to the financial statements
    is not that the jury learned that they existed and that Lindsay
    received them; it is that the financial statements show their
    net worth.
    Lindsay has relatively little to say about how Wegener’s
    and Pribil’s net worth was relevant to the issues in the case.
    That said, Wegener and Pribil did not ask that evidence of
    their net worth be redacted from the financial statements, and,
    furthermore, we can identify at least one way in which their
    net worth clears the relatively low relevance threshold. One of
    the issues the jury considered was whether Lindsay induced
    Wegener and Pribil to enter into the guaranties through mis-
    representations. An element of this defense is that the rep-
    resentations of Lindsay’s agents substantially contributed to
    the decision to guarantee IJS. Evidence of Wegener’s and
    Pribil’s relatively significant net worth might tend to rebut
    any notion that they were unsophisticated individuals who
    were susceptible to being swayed by the representations of
    Lindsay’s agents.
    Evidence of the guarantors’ net worth may not have been
    highly probative on this issue, and Wegener and Pribil may
    have had a colorable argument that the potential for prejudice
    exceeded the probative value. Even so, we cannot say that the
    evidence lacked any probative value. Consequently, we cannot
    find that the district court abused its discretion in admitting
    the financial statements.
    Motion for New Trial.
    Finally, Wegener and Pribil argue that the trial court erred
    in failing to grant their motion for new trial based on the
    directed verdict and the admission of financial statements. An
    appellate court reviews a denial of a motion for new trial for
    - 18 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    301 Nebraska R eports
    LINDSAY INTERNAT. SALES & SERV. v. WEGENER
    Cite as 
    301 Neb. 1
    an abuse of discretion. Facilities Cost Mgmt. Group v. Otoe
    Cty. Sch. Dist., 
    298 Neb. 777
    , 
    906 N.W.2d 1
    (2018). Having
    concluded that the district court did not err in directing a
    verdict as to Wegener and Pribil’s affirmative defenses and
    in admitting evidence of their finances, we find no abuse of
    discretion in its denial of their motion for new trial.
    CONCLUSION
    For the foregoing reasons, we find no basis to reverse the
    district court’s decision and therefore affirm.
    A ffirmed.
    Miller-Lerman, J., not participating.