In re Estate of Harchelroad

- 573 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
318 Nebraska Reports
IN RE ESTATE OF HARCHELROAD
Cite as 318 Neb. 573
In re Estate of Sidney B. Harchelroad, deceased.
Michelle Harchelroad, individually and
as Personal Representative of the Estate of
Brian L. Harchelroad, deceased, appellee, v.
Carol Harchelroad, as Personal Representative
of the Estate of Sidney B. Harchelroad,
deceased, appellant.
___ N.W.3d ___
Filed March 14, 2025. 	No. S-23-915.
1. Decedents’ Estates: Judgments: Appeal and Error. In the absence of
an equity question, an appellate court, reviewing probate matters, exam-
ines for error appearing on the record made in the county court. When
reviewing a judgment for errors appearing on the record, the inquiry is
whether the decision conforms to the law, is supported by competent
evidence, and is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable.
2. Decedents’ Estates: Appeal and Error. An appellate court, in review-
ing a probate court judgment for errors appearing on the record, will
not substitute its factual findings for those of the probate court where
competent evidence supports those findings.
3. Decedents’ Estates: Judgments: Appeal and Error. When reviewing
questions of law in a probate matter, an appellate court reaches a conclu-
sion independent of the determination reached by the court below.
4. Contracts: Intent. The question of whether a party is an accommoda-
tion maker or a principal obligor on an instrument is a question of intent.
5. Principal and Surety: Words and Phrases. An accommodation party
is a surety.
6. ____: ____. A surety engages to be answerable for the debt, default, or
miscarriage of another, the principal.
7. Assignments: Words and Phrases. An assignment is the transfer of
some identifiable property, claim, or right from the assignor to the
assignee.
Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
10/14/2026 08:11 AM CDT

- 574 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
318 Nebraska Reports
IN RE ESTATE OF HARCHELROAD
Cite as 318 Neb. 573
8. Contribution: Equity. The doctrine of contribution is an equitable
doctrine which requires that persons under a common burden share that
burden equitably.
9. Contribution: Parties: Liability. The prerequisites to a claim for
contribution are that the party seeking contribution and the party from
whom it is sought share a common liability and that the party seeking
contribution has discharged more than his or her fair share of the com-
mon liability.
10. Guaranty: Principal and Surety. A right of contribution exists between
cosureties regardless of whether they are designated as guarantors,
accommodation makers, or otherwise, provided that they share the same
pecuniary obligation with respect to the same debt.
11. Appeal and Error. An appellate court is not obligated to engage in an
analysis that is not needed to adjudicate the controversy before it.
Appeal from the County Court for Chase County, Edward
D. Steenburg, Judge. Affirmed.
Robert B. Reynolds and Michael D. Samuelson, of Reynolds,
Korth & Samuelson, P.C., L.L.O., for appellant.
Erin R. Robak, of McGill, Gotsdiner, Workman & Lepp,
P.C., L.L.O., for appellee.
Funke, C.J., Cassel, Stacy, Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.
Cassel, J.
I. INTRODUCTION
This appeal concerns three claims filed in the estate of
Sidney B. Harchelroad. Two claims were filed by banks relat-
ing to unpaid promissory notes upon which Sidney and Brian
L. Harchelroad were cosureties. The third was filed by Brian,
contingent on his paying to the banks more than his share. He
did so. After Brian’s death, his wife, Michelle Harchelroad,
paid the banks the amounts due in exchange for an assignment
of their claims. Brian’s estate and Michelle then sought from
Sidney’s estate one-half of the amounts paid. The county court
largely granted the request, and this appeal followed. Because
the notes were not extinguished by Michelle’s payments in her
individual capacity or the assignments to Michelle, we affirm
the county court’s decision.

- 575 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
318 Nebraska Reports
IN RE ESTATE OF HARCHELROAD
Cite as 318 Neb. 573
II. BACKGROUND
1. Business Loans and Promissory Notes
Brothers Sidney and Brian, officers of Harchelroad Motors,
Inc. (HMI), obtained loans on HMI’s behalf. This case involves
promissory notes given in exchange for loans from Western
States Bank, formerly known as Valley Bank and Trust Co.
(Western), and Waypoint Bank, formerly known as First Bank
& Trust Company (Waypoint):
Bank 	Amount 	Signed by
Waypoint Note
#16575
$1,805,000 	Sidney: individually and
as officer
Brian: individually and
as officer
Western Note 	$1,500,100 	Sidney: individually and
as officer
Brian: individually and
as officer
Waypoint Note
#20823
$2,000,000 	Sidney: as officer
Brian: as officer
The proceeds of the loans were advanced to HMI; Sidney
and Brian did not personally receive any of the proceeds. For
“Waypoint Note #20823,” Sidney and Brian each executed a
guaranty for the loan. This loan and guaranty are not the sub-
ject of a claim for contribution on appeal.
2. Sidney’s Estate
Sidney died in 2018, and his wife, Carol Harchelroad, was
appointed as personal representative of his estate. Three claims
filed against his estate are pertinent in this appeal.
Waypoint and Western each filed a claim related to one or
more of the promissory notes identified above. These claims
were allowed. 1
1 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2488(a) (Cum. Supp. 2024).

- 576 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
318 Nebraska Reports
IN RE ESTATE OF HARCHELROAD
Cite as 318 Neb. 573
Brian also filed a claim. It stated that if Brian had to pay
either or both of the banks in an amount greater than any pay-
ment made by Sidney’s estate, then Brian would have a claim
against Sidney’s estate for any payment made in excess of the
payments made by Sidney’s estate. The claim acknowledged
that it was currently “contingent, uncertain and unliquidated.”
Carol disallowed Brian’s claim. Brian thereafter filed a
petition for allowance of his claim.
3. District Court Lawsuits
After Waypoint and Western filed claims in Sidney’s estate
and before Brian filed his claim, Waypoint and Western brought
lawsuits in district court.
(a) Waypoint
Waypoint sued Brian after it demanded HMI and Brian pay
the entire balances due on the notes but no payments were
made. In November 2018, the court entered judgment of over
$3.3 million in favor of Waypoint and against Brian. In March
2019, Waypoint entered into a forbearance agreement with
HMI and Brian.
(b) Western
Western filed two separate lawsuits. One, an action for
breach of contract, will be discussed later in the background
section. In the other, a replevin action against HMI, Western
alleged that HMI owed over $1.4 million pursuant to the note
and sought immediate possession of certain collateral.
Shortly after filing suit, Western entered into a forbearance
agreement with HMI, Brian, and Carol, in her capacity as per-
sonal representative. Under the agreement, Western agreed to
not take further action in exchange for payments of $200,000
and certain promises. Brian made payments totaling $600,000.
4. Brian’s Death and Claims
In August 	2019, 	Brian 	died. 	His 	wife, 	Michelle, 	was
appointed as personal representative of his estate. Waypoint
and Western filed claims in Brian’s estate. Waypoint identified

- 577 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
318 Nebraska Reports
IN RE ESTATE OF HARCHELROAD
Cite as 318 Neb. 573
its claim as the March 2019 forbearance agreement for over
$2.5 million. Western based its claim for $998,839.87 upon the
promissory note.
5. Western’s Other Lawsuit and Judgment
As mentioned, Western also sued for breach of contract
on the promissory note. In April 2020, it filed an amended
complaint naming as defendants Michelle and Carol, in their
personal representative capacities. In November, the court
entered a stipulated judgment against HMI and Brian’s estate
for $666,498.58 plus interest.
6. Payments and Substitutions
of Claimant
(a) Waypoint
With regard to Waypoint Note #20823, HMI sold its car
dealership and used proceeds from the sale to “pa[y] off” the
note.
Turning to “Waypoint Note #16575,” Michelle obtained a
loan for $965,000 and disbursed $946,487.29 to Waypoint to
“pa[y] off” the note. In exchange for the payment, Michelle,
individually, and Waypoint entered into a note purchase agree-
ment in October 2021 “with regard to the sale of the Note, the
Security Documents and assignment of rights under Statements
of Claim and a Judgment owned by [Waypoint].” The agree-
ment stated, “The transaction contemplated herein is a sale
and assignment of the Loan Documents to [Michelle] and not
a payment of the Note.”
Michelle subsequently filed in Sidney’s estate a notice of
substitution of claimant. It stated that Michelle, individually,
purchased and was the rightful owner and successor in inter-
est to the claim of Waypoint and that she substituted herself
as the rightful claimant.
(b) Western
In December 2020, Michelle, individually and as personal
representative of Brian’s estate, entered into an agreement with

- 578 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
318 Nebraska Reports
IN RE ESTATE OF HARCHELROAD
Cite as 318 Neb. 573
Western regarding the sale and purchase of the promissory
note. She made a payment of $671,481.40 to Western to “pay
off” the loan. In return, Western agreed to “transfer[] and con-
vey[] all of its rights, legal, contractual, equitable or otherwise
in to and under the Note and HMI Loan Documents and . . .
claims and judgments.”
Subsequently, Michelle sought to substitute herself as a
claimant in Sidney’s estate and as a plaintiff in Western’s
breach of contract lawsuit. In Sidney’s estate, Michelle’s notice
of substitution of claimant stated that she, individually, pur-
chased and was the rightful owner and successor in interest
to the claim of Western. In Western’s lawsuit, Michelle, indi-
vidually and as personal representative of Brian’s estate, filed
a substitution of party stating that Michelle, as assignee and
successor in interest to Western, had succeeded Western as the
plaintiff in the lawsuit.
7. Petition for Order to Pay Claims
Michelle, individually and as personal representative of
Brian’s estate, filed in Sidney’s estate a petition for order to
pay claims. She sought an order requiring Sidney’s estate to
pay her $939,322.89 to satisfy the statements of claim initially
filed by Waypoint and Western.
With regard to the Waypoint indebtedness, Michelle alleged
that Brian paid $600,000 and that she paid $946,487.29.
Michelle alleged that in exchange for her payment, Waypoint
transferred to her all of its interest in note #16575. According
to Michelle, the contributory share of Sidney’s estate was no
less than $515,495.76.
With respect to the Western indebtedness, Michelle alleged
that Brian paid $600,000 and that she, individually and as
personal representative of Brian’s estate, paid $671,481.40.
Michelle asserted that in exchange for the latter payment,
Western transferred to her all of Western’s rights under the
note. Michelle alleged that the contributory share of Sidney’s
estate was no less than $423,827.13.

- 579 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
318 Nebraska Reports
IN RE ESTATE OF HARCHELROAD
Cite as 318 Neb. 573
8. Hearing
The county court conducted a hearing. Evidence established
that HMI continues to operate at a profit.
Michelle testified that she “run[s] the company.” At the time
of the September 2023 hearing, she had been president of HMI
for approximately 2 years. Michelle was also HMI’s major-
ity shareholder and the president of HMI’s board of directors.
HMI pays Michelle a yearly salary of $50,000 and $1,500 per
month to rent space.
Michelle testified about Brian’s payments to Waypoint and
Western. He made the payments because HMI “was not in
a financial position to make any payments, and the banks
were demanding the money, and the loans were in default.”
According to Michelle, Brian used funds from life insurance,
investments he had with Michelle, and “inheritance from [his]
parents’ estate.” Michelle denied that any money from HMI
was used to make payments on the notes. HMI entered into
promissory notes with Brian in November 2018 and February
2019, agreeing to repay him. But Michelle testified that HMI
had not made any payments under those notes because it was
not in a financial position to do so.
Michelle also testified concerning her payment in connec-
tion with the debt owed on Waypoint Note #16575. She “took
out a personal loan” of $965,000 on HMI’s behalf “[b]ecause
[HMI] couldn’t get a loan to pay that off.” HMI was not a bor-
rower on that personal loan. HMI’s board of directors adopted
a resolution authorizing Michelle, as president of HMI, to
enter into a promissory note with Michelle, individually, in the
principal amount of $965,000. HMI makes monthly payments
to Michelle of $4,556.38 for the $946,487.29 that she paid.
HMI still owes $919,119.02.
Finally, Michelle testified about the Western indebtedness.
She paid Western $671,481.40 because the loan was in default
and Western wanted to be paid. Michelle testified that “[she]
was able to pay it off” but that HMI “was not in a financial
position to get a loan.” To make the payment, Michelle used

- 580 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
318 Nebraska Reports
IN RE ESTATE OF HARCHELROAD
Cite as 318 Neb. 573
funds deposited into her bank account from a “New York
Life [insurance] payment” and “an investment that [she] took
money out of.” HMI and Michelle entered into a promissory
note with respect to Michelle’s payment to Western. HMI is
obligated to make monthly payments to Michelle of $4,966.87
for 15 years to repay the principal amount of $671,481.40. An
exhibit showed the remaining debt to be $582,526.
There is no dispute that Sidney’s estate had made no pay-
ments toward the indebtedness owed to Waypoint and Western.
9. Order
The county court entered an order granting in part Brian’s
petition for allowance of claim and granting Michelle’s petition
for order to pay claims.
(a) Brian’s Petition for Allowance of Claim
The court granted the petition for allowance of claim regard-
ing the $600,000 in payments Brian made on the Western note.
Because Sidney’s estate had made no payments, the court
found that Brian’s estate was entitled to contribution from
Sidney’s estate of $300,000. The court denied the petition for
allowance of claim as to the $600,000 in payments Brian made
to Waypoint on note #20823, and that finding is not challenged
in this appeal.
(b) Michelle’s Petition for Order to Pay Claims
The court found that Michelle, individually, made all of
the payments to Waypoint on note #16575 and to Western.
Citing Michelle’s testimony and her written agreements with
Waypoint and Western, the court found that the notes were not
extinguished by Michelle’s payments. Rather, Waypoint and
Western transferred to Michelle all of their rights to the notes.
The court also rejected Carol’s argument that the notes
were extinguished by the assignments to Michelle, a comaker.
The court determined that Michelle did not make payments
on the notes as the personal representative of Brian’s estate,
did not use estate funds, and did not make the payment on

- 581 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
318 Nebraska Reports
IN RE ESTATE OF HARCHELROAD
Cite as 318 Neb. 573
behalf of anyone other than herself. Further, the court stated
that there was no evidence of any intent to discharge the
obligation of Sidney’s estate. The court found that the claims
belonged to Michelle, individually.
The court also concluded that the notes did not merge into
the judgment as it pertained to Sidney’s estate. The court rea-
soned that the argument for merger might be true as to Brian,
but that no judgment had been entered against Sidney’s estate.
Thus, the court stated that the promissory notes are enforce-
able against Sidney’s estate.
Accordingly, 	the 	court 	granted 	Michelle’s 	petition 	for
order to pay claims. The court ordered Sidney’s estate to pay
Michelle, individually, $291,263.20 for the Western note and
$459,559.51 for Waypoint Note #16575.
Carol filed a timely appeal, which we moved to our docket. 2
III. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
Carol assigns that the county court erred in (1) failing to
find that the claims originally filed by Waypoint and Western
were extinguished when the claims were based upon promis-
sory notes that (a) had merged into judgments and (b) had been
paid in full, (2) granting in part Brian’s petition for allowance
of claim, and (3) granting the petition for order to pay claims
filed by Michelle, individually and as personal representative
of Brian’s estate.
IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW
[1-3] In the absence of an equity question, an appellate court,
reviewing probate matters, examines for error appearing on the
record made in the county court. When reviewing a judgment
for errors appearing on the record, the inquiry is whether the
decision conforms to the law, is supported by competent evi-
dence, and is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable. 3
An appellate court, in reviewing a probate court judgment for
2 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-1106(3) (Cum. Supp. 2024).
3 In re Estate of Adelung, 306 Neb. 646, 947 N.W.2d 269 (2020).

- 582 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
318 Nebraska Reports
IN RE ESTATE OF HARCHELROAD
Cite as 318 Neb. 573
errors appearing on the record, will not substitute its factual
findings for those of the probate court where competent evi-
dence supports those findings. 4 When reviewing questions of
law in a probate matter, an appellate court reaches a conclusion
independent of the determination reached by the court below. 5
V. ANALYSIS
We begin by discussing Waypoint Note #16575 and the
Western note, as well as the statuses of Sidney, Brian, and
Michelle with respect to the notes. Next, we set forth a general
discussion of the doctrine of contribution. Lastly, we address
Carol’s assignments of error alleging that the notes were extin-
guished and that the county court erred in ordering contribu-
tion against Sidney’s estate.
1. Promissory Notes
In general, a negotiable instrument is an unconditional prom-
ise to pay a fixed amount of money with interest at a definite
time. 6 Waypoint Note #16575 and the Western note fit this
definition. The provisions of article 3 of Nebraska’s Uniform
Commercial Code apply to negotiable instruments. 7
Sidney and Brian signed the notes individually and as offi-
cers of HMI. Thus, Sidney and Brian were each a maker of the
notes. “‘Maker’ means a person who signs or is identified in a
note as a person undertaking to pay.” 8
Except as otherwise provided in the instrument, two or more
persons who have the same liability on an instrument—such
as liability as makers—are jointly and severally liable in the
capacity in which they sign. 9 The notes here expressly contem-
plated joint and several liability.
4 In re Estate of Walker, 315 Neb. 510, 997 N.W.2d 595 (2023).
5 In re Estate of Lorenz, 292 Neb. 543, 873 N.W.2d 396 (2016).
6 See Neb. U.C.C. § 3-104(a) (Reissue 2020).
7 See Neb. U.C.C. § 3-102(a) (Reissue 2020).
8 Neb. U.C.C. § 3-103(a)(5) (Reissue 2020).
9 See Neb. U.C.C. § 3-116(a) (Reissue 2020).

- 583 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
318 Nebraska Reports
IN RE ESTATE OF HARCHELROAD
Cite as 318 Neb. 573
[4] A party who signs an instrument as a maker may be an
accommodation party. 10 An accommodation party is a party
to an instrument who “signs the instrument for the pur-
pose of incurring liability on the instrument without being
a direct beneficiary of the value given for the instrument.” 11
An accommodation party “is obliged to pay the instrument in
the capacity in which the accommodation party signs.” 12 The
question of whether a party is an accommodation maker or a
principal obligor on an instrument is a question of intent. 13
Here, Sidney and Brian did not receive any of the proceeds
of the notes, and the parties agree that Sidney and Brian were
accommodation parties.
[5,6] An 	accommodation 	party 	is 	a 	surety. 14 “‘Surety’
includes a guarantor or other secondary obligor.” 15 A surety
engages to be answerable for the debt, default, or miscarriage
of another, the principal. 16 Sidney and Brian were cosureties
with respect to the notes.
Waypoint and Western filed claims in the respective estates
of Sidney and Brian related to the outstanding obligations
flowing from the notes. Sidney’s estate did not disallow the
claims. A claimant whose claim has been allowed but not paid
may secure an order directing the personal representative to
pay the claim to the extent that funds of the estate are available
for the payment. 17 Here, Michelle sought such an order.
[7] In addition to being the personal representative of Brian’s
estate, Michelle acquired a different status. In her individual
10 See Neb. U.C.C. § 3-419(b) (Reissue 2020).
11 § 3-419(a).
12 § 3-419(b).
13 Borley Storage & Transfer Co. v. Whitted, 271 Neb. 84, 710 N.W.2d 71
(2006).
14 Rodehorst v. Gartner, 266 Neb. 842, 669 N.W.2d 679 (2003).
15 Neb. U.C.C. § 1-201(39) (Cum. Supp. 2024).
16 See Rodehorst v. Gartner, supra note 14.
17 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2489(a) (Reissue 2016).

- 584 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
318 Nebraska Reports
IN RE ESTATE OF HARCHELROAD
Cite as 318 Neb. 573
capacity, Michelle paid the amounts due to Waypoint and
Western and took an assignment of their rights. An assign-
ment is the transfer of some identifiable property, claim, or
right from the assignor to the assignee. 18 An assignee stands
in the shoes of the assignor and accepts it subject to all avail-
able defenses. 19 The assignment transfers to an assignee only
the rights of the assignor. 20 We will discuss the effect of
Michelle’s status as an assignee in more detail in the context
of resolving Carol’s assignments of error.
2. Contribution
[8] The doctrine of contribution is an equitable doctrine
which requires that persons under a common burden share that
burden equitably. 21 We have explained the doctrine as follows:
“‘Where there are two or more sureties for the same
principal debtor, and for the same debt or obligation,
whether on the same or on different instruments, and one
of them has actually paid or satisfied more than his pro-
portionate share of the debt or obligation, he is entitled
to a contribution from each and all of his co-sureties,
in order to reimburse him for the excess paid over his
share, and thus to equalize their common burdens. . . .
The right, however, may be controlled or modified by
express agreement among the co-sureties or debtors. The
doctrine of contribution rests upon the maxim, Equality
is equity . . . .’” 22
[9,10] The prerequisites to a claim for contribution are that
the party seeking contribution and the party from whom it is
18 Millard Gutter Co. v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 312 Neb. 606, 980 N.W.2d 420
(2022).
19 Zapata v. McHugh, 296 Neb. 216, 893 N.W.2d 720 (2017).
20 Id.
21 Estate of Powell v. Montange, 277 Neb. 846, 765 N.W.2d 496 (2009).
22 Rodehorst v. Gartner, supra note 14, 266 Neb. at 847, 669 N.W.2d at 684,
quoting Exchange Elevator Company v. Marshall, 147 Neb. 48, 22 N.W.2d
403 (1946).

- 585 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
318 Nebraska Reports
IN RE ESTATE OF HARCHELROAD
Cite as 318 Neb. 573
sought share a common liability and that the party seeking
contribution has discharged more than his or her fair share of
the common liability. 23 The Uniform Commercial Code states,
“Except as provided in section 3-419(e) or by agreement of
the affected parties, a party having joint and several liabil-
ity who pays the instrument is entitled to receive from any
party having the same joint and several liability contribution
in accordance with applicable law.” 24 A right of contribution
exists between cosureties regardless of whether they are des-
ignated as guarantors, accommodation makers, or otherwise,
provided that they share the same pecuniary obligation with
respect to the same debt. 25 The record contains no agreement
between Sidney and Brian providing for other than equal
liability as cosureties.
With this understanding of the parties’ statuses and the doc-
trine of contribution, we turn to Carol’s assignments of error.
3. Extinguishment of Claims
Carol advances two reasons why she believes the claims
were extinguished. We address the reasons separately and find
no merit to either.
(a) Merged Into Judgments
First, Carol contends that obligations on the promissory
notes merged into the judgments and that the notes ceased to
exist. As set forth in the background, judgments against Brian
or his estate were entered in favor of Waypoint in 2018 and in
favor of Western in 2020. No judgment was entered against
Sidney or his estate.
Carol’s argument relies on two propositions contained in
American Nat. Bank v. Medved. 26 One stated that as a general
23 See United Gen. Title Ins. Co. v. Malone, 289 Neb. 1006, 858 N.W.2d 196
(2015).
24 § 3-116(b).
25 Rodehorst v. Gartner, supra note 14.
26 American Nat. Bank v. Medved, 281 Neb. 799, 801 N.W.2d 230 (2011).

- 586 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
318 Nebraska Reports
IN RE ESTATE OF HARCHELROAD
Cite as 318 Neb. 573
rule, when a claim on a contract is reduced to judgment, the
contract between the parties is voluntarily surrendered and
canceled by merger in the judgment and ceases to exist. 27 The
other provided that when a cause of action for the recovery
of money damages is merged in a valid and final judgment in
favor of the plaintiff, the cause of action is extinguished and a
new cause of action on the judgment is created. 28
Carol’s reliance on the propositions from American Nat.
Bank concerning merger is misplaced with regard to Sidney’s
estate. Neither judgment was entered against Sidney’s estate.
Because Sidney had joint and several liability, a creditor
could still pursue a claim against Sidney’s estate based on
the notes.
(b) Payment in Full
Second, Carol argues that the claims of Waypoint and
Western were extinguished because the notes and guaranty had
been paid in full. The county court determined that the notes
were not extinguished; rather, the banks transferred to Michelle
their rights in and to the notes. We agree.
We turn to Michelle’s agreements with each bank. The
agreement with Waypoint explicitly stated, “The transaction
contemplated herein is a sale and assignment of the Loan
Documents to [Michelle] and not a payment of the Note.”
The agreement with Western stated that Michelle wished to
purchase Western’s “rights, claims, and benefits” pertaining
to the notes and judgment. In exchange for Michelle’s pay-
ment, Western “transfers and conveys all of its rights, legal,
contractual, equitable or otherwise in to and under the Note
and HMI Loan Documents and the above referenced claims
and judgments.” The agreement contemplated a “transfer of
ownership.”
27 Id.
28 Id.

- 587 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
318 Nebraska Reports
IN RE ESTATE OF HARCHELROAD
Cite as 318 Neb. 573
The documentary evidence supports Michelle’s testimony
that she obtained an assignment of the notes of Waypoint and
Western. In Rodehorst v. Gartner, 29 we determined that the
assignment of a promissory note from the bank to a surety
who was both an accommodation maker and guarantor neither
enhanced nor diminished that surety’s right to seek equitable
contribution from a cosurety. Here, the assignments from the
banks to Michelle did not change Brian’s status as a cosurety.
Nor did the assignments diminish Michelle’s right to seek con-
tribution from Sidney’s estate of a proportionate share.
Carol makes a different challenge based on language in
Michelle’s agreement with Western. The agreement identified
the purchaser as Michelle, individually and as personal rep-
resentative of Brian’s estate. Similarly, Michelle’s petition for
order to pay claims asserted that Michelle, individually and as
personal representative of Brian’s estate, paid Western. Thus,
Carol contends that Michelle’s involvement in making the
payment in her capacity as personal representative of Brian’s
estate resulted in extinguishment rather than assignment.
The county court rejected this contention and found that
Michelle, individually, made the payment. Michelle testified
that she paid Western by using funds deposited into her bank
account from an insurance payment and an investment. The
court credited this testimony, which a bank statement corrobo-
rated. Because competent evidence supports the court’s find-
ing, we will not substitute a different one.
[11] And because we accept the county court’s finding that
Michelle, individually, made the payment, we need not address
Carol’s arguments premised on Michelle’s making the payment
in her capacity as personal representative of Brian’s estate. An
appellate court is not obligated to engage in an analysis that is
not needed to adjudicate the controversy before it. 30
29 Rodehorst v. Gartner, supra note 14.
30 In re Estate of Walker, supra note 4.

- 588 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
318 Nebraska Reports
IN RE ESTATE OF HARCHELROAD
Cite as 318 Neb. 573
4. Granting Contribution Against
Sidney’s Estate
(a) Payments by Brian
Carol challenges the court’s granting of the petition for
allowance 	of 	claim 	with 	respect 	to 	Brian’s 	payment 	of
$600,000 to Western. Carol’s argument that Brian’s petition
should have been denied is based on a narrow reading of the
claim he filed in Sidney’s estate. She contends that Brian’s
claim was limited to the guaranty he executed for Waypoint
Note #20823. We disagree.
Because Carol’s argument is based on the language of
Brian’s statement of claim, we set it out in full. It stated:
This Claim of the undersigned is hereby made against
this estate as follows:
The decedent, Sidney B. Harchelroad and the Claimant,
Brian 	L. 	Harchelroad, 	each 	executed 	Guarantees 	of
Promissory Notes which became the subject matter of
Claims filed in this Estate by Waypoint Bank and Western
States Bank. The Guarantees are equal and identical in
their terms and as a result the decedent and the Claimant
have equal liability for the bank loans as a result of the
Guarantees. In the event that at some point in the future,
the Claimant is required to make payment to one or both
of the bank creditors as a result of his Guarantee, which
is in an amount greater than any payment made by the
Estate of Sidney B. Harchelroad, the undersigned will
then have a claim against this Estate for any payment
made in excess of the payments made by the Decedent’s
Estate. At this time any such Claim has not yet arisen
and is contingent, uncertain and unliquidated.
At the time that Brian filed his claim in Sidney’s estate,
Waypoint and Western had already filed claims based on
promissory notes and on a guaranty. Brian’s claim specifically
referred to “Guarantees of Promissory Notes which became the
subject matter of Claims filed in this Estate by Waypoint Bank
and Western States Bank.” This language put Sidney’s estate

- 589 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
318 Nebraska Reports
IN RE ESTATE OF HARCHELROAD
Cite as 318 Neb. 573
on notice that Brian may seek contribution from the estate if
Brian had to pay Waypoint or Western an amount greater than
the amounts contributed by Sidney’s estate. Carol’s argument
that Brian’s claim was limited to the guaranty with Waypoint
lacks merit.
Carol further argues that Brian was not entitled to contri-
bution because HMI provided Brian with promissory notes
to reimburse him for his payments to Waypoint and Western.
However, there is no evidence that HMI has made any pay-
ments on those notes.
To the extent Carol uses the existence of the promissory
notes between HMI and Brian to argue that the parties do
not share the same pecuniary obligations with respect to the
debt, the argument lacks merit. Sidney and Brian started out
as accommodation makers—i.e., cosureties—who shared the
same pecuniary obligation with respect to the promissory
notes that they signed with Waypoint and Western. When the
promissory notes were not paid at maturity, Sidney and Brian
both became obligated for payment of the notes. 31 Because
Brian paid more than a proportionate share, his estate is enti-
tled to contribution from Sidney’s estate.
Carol’s arguments related to HMI’s ability to pay do not
assist her. She argues that HMI has the capacity to repay
the indebtedness and that Brian’s estate should have to seek
reimbursement from HMI before compelling contribution. But
HMI’s solvency has no impact on a cosurety’s right to contri-
bution from another cosurety. Thus, Brian’s estate could seek
contribution from Sidney’s estate.
Carol further contends that the court erroneously determined
the amount of the proportionate share. The court’s determina-
tion required Sidney’s estate to pay a contributory one-half
of the payments made by Brian. Carol highlights that there
were three makers on the relevant notes—HMI, Sidney, and
Brian. She cites case law providing that the proportionate
31 See Rodehorst v. Gartner, supra note 14.

- 590 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
318 Nebraska Reports
IN RE ESTATE OF HARCHELROAD
Cite as 318 Neb. 573
share should be determined by dividing the total sum among
the number of solvent parties. 32 The case Carol cites predated
adoption of the Uniform Commercial Code. The Uniform
Commercial Code specifies that contribution is among par-
ties having the same joint and several liability. 33 HMI—as the
accommodated party—did not have the same liability as the
cosureties. Thus, the court properly determined that the pro-
portionate share was one-half.
We see no error on the record concerning the county court’s
decision that Sidney’s estate should pay Michelle, as personal
representative of Brian’s estate, $300,000 plus interest on
Brian’s petition for allowance of claim.
(b) Payments by Michelle
Carol also sets forth several reasons why she believes the
trial court erred in granting Michelle’s petition for order to pay
claims. None are persuasive.
Carol argues that Michelle is not deserving of the court’s
equity because HMI is making monthly payments to reim-
burse her and that Michelle should have to seek reimburse-
ment from HMI before compelling contribution. Michelle
brought her petition for order to pay claims individually and
as personal representative of Brian’s estate. And as assignee,
Michelle had the right to seek contribution from a cosurety
who was jointly and severally liable. Thus, Michelle was
entitled to seek contribution from Sidney’s estate equal to
one-half of the amounts she paid.
Nothing in this opinion should be read to foreclose Sidney’s
estate from seeking reimbursement if, due to payments by HMI
to Michelle or Brian’s estate, Sidney’s estate paid contribution
greater than its proportionate share.
The county court’s decision that Sidney’s estate should
pay Michelle, individually, $459,559.51 plus interest relating
32 See Exchange Elevator Company v. Marshall, supra note 22.
33 See § 3-116(b).

- 591 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
318 Nebraska Reports
IN RE ESTATE OF HARCHELROAD
Cite as 318 Neb. 573
to the claim initially filed by Waypoint on note #16575 and
$291,263.20 plus interest relating to the claim initially filed
by Western conforms to the law, is supported by competent
evidence, and is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable.
VI. CONCLUSION
We conclude the following:
• Sidney and Brian, as accommodation makers and cosureties,
had the same pecuniary obligation with respect to the notes
such that one could seek contribution from the other if he
discharged more than his fair share of the common liability.
• Because neither judgment concerning the notes was entered
against Sidney’s estate and he had joint and several liability,
the judgments did not extinguish Sidney’s liability.
• Michelle, in her individual capacity, used her own funds to
pay the banks the amounts they were owed in exchange for
an assignment of Waypoint’s and Western’s rights under their
respective notes. Because the agreements contemplated an
assignment or transfer of rights, Michelle’s payments to the
banks did not extinguish the notes.
• Because Brian and Michelle paid more than one-half of a
liability for which Sidney’s estate shared equal liability, the
county court properly granted the requests of Brian’s estate
and Michelle for contribution of one-half from Sidney’s estate.
Finding no error on the record, we affirm the county
court’s order.
Affirmed.
Miller-Lerman, J., not participating.