Churchill v. Columbus Comm. Hosp.

Nebraska Advance Sheets CHURCHILL v. COLUMBUS COMM. HOSP. 759 Cite as

285 Neb. 759

N.W.2d 34 (1996). The district court did not abuse its discre- tion in denying Murante’s motion to amend. The district court correctly determined that Murante was liable to Mutual under the guaranty agreement for the amount of Sutherlands’ indebtedness minus the credit bid from the trustee’s sale. There are no material issues of fact, and Mutual is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, the district court did not err in sustaining Mutual’s motion for sum- mary judgment. See Zawaideh v. Nebraska…