With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Kay’s authorization and knowledge. However, the Damalls were still entitled, under these findings, to enforce the note according to its “original tenor.” Id. The “original tenor” of the note at issue, considering the trial court’s findings, was one with no interest rates stated, only blank spaces. The 18-percent default rate becomes ineffective for any purpose. Accordingly, the trial court’s factual findings render the usury defense based on that 18-percent interest rate inapplicable as a matter of law. The trial court erred in applying usury to defeat the Damalls’ claim for interest. Because of this, we need not address the parties’ arguments on whether the 18-percent interest was usurious under the circumstances of this case. See Kelly v. Kelly, 246 Neb. 55, 516 N.W.2d 612 (1994) (<HOLDING>). The remaining issues are whether any interest

A: holding an appellate court need not address remaining issues when disposition of prior issue is dispositive
B: holding that an appellate court need not address all remaining issues when disposition of prior issue is dispositive
C: holding an appellate court need not address remaining issues when disposition of a prior issue is dispositive
D: holding appellate court need not address issues unnecessary to its decision
D.