Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Shirley Krzycki was the sole settlor, trustee, and beneficiary of the Shirley Krzycki Trust established to hold annual payments from an insurance settlement. Upon Shirley's death, Shirley's son Greg was named successor trustee of the Trust. Greg filed suit, claiming that sums on deposit in a bank account, formerly owned by Shirley as "primary joint owner," were property of the Trust. Shirley's daughter Robin was originally named "secondary joint owner" on this account, and Robin refused to give to the Trust the sums on deposit in this account. After a bench trial, the district court held that the balance of the Wells Fargo account belonged to the Trust. The Supreme Court affirmed, but for reasons different from those of the district court, holding (1) the remaining sums on deposit in the bank account for the benefit of the Trust were trust funds belonging to the Trust; and (2) Robin converted the funds in the account for her own use by refusing to turn them over to the Trust. View "Krzycki v. Krzycki" on Justia Law

The parties here were the surviving children of Decedent. Under Decedent's will, they were beneficiaries of a joint life estate interest in farmland. The will provided that no life tenant or remainderman could partition the property during the existence of any life tenancy. Through a codicil, Decedent later added a provision disinheriting any child who contested his will. After the probate court entered the final order in the probate proceeding, Appellees brought a partition action to divide the property. The district court dismissed the action, concluding that Appellees were not bound by the will's restriction against a partition because they had not contested the will during the probate proceeding. Appellants then filed a declaratory judgment, claiming that Appellees had forfeited their inheritance by contesting the will through the partition action. The district court dismissed Appellants' action. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly determined that Appellants' partition action was not a will contest because it was filed after the estate was closed. View "Martin v. Ullsperger" on Justia Law

This was an action for partition of the real property in the estate of Ronald McKillip. At the time of his death, McKillip owned four tracts of land. McKillip's will left the property to his three daughters, "share and share alike." The probate court confirmed ownership of the real estate to the daughters in equal shares. One daughter brought an action to partition the real estate. A referee appointed by the county court determined that a partition in kind of the real estate was not possible and recommended a public sale. The court approved the report and concluded that the real estate could not be partitioned in kind "without great prejudice to the owners." The court ordered the referee to sell the real estate, and the personal representative appealed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the real estate should be partitioned in kind. Remanded with directions. View "In re Estate of McKillip" on Justia Law

The Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) provided Medicaid benefits for Virginia Lee Cushing during the final years of her life. After her death, DHHS filed a claim against Cushing's estate for recovery of the benefits pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 68-919. The personal representative of the estate appealed from an order of the county court allowing the claim and awarding interest. At issue on appeal was whether DHHS timely presented its claim and, if so, whether it was proved as a matter of law. The Supreme Court concluded the claim was both timely presented and proved as a matter of law but modified the award of interest. View "In re Estate of Cushing" on Justia Law

This appeal involved an allegedly void trust that was executed and recorded in 1979 and to which several parcels of real property were purportedly deeded. The trust terms provided that it would terminate in 2004. In 2008, the trustees of the questioned trust deeded the property to the trust's purported beneficiaries. One of the settlor's children sued to set aside the trust and deeds and to quiet title in the property to the settlor's heirs at law. The district court determined that the plaintiff's claims were barred by the statute of limitations. At issue on appeal was when the applicable statute of limitations began to run. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the statute of limitations for the plaintiff's claims had expired. View "Newman v. Liebig" on Justia Law

Hastings State Bank sought to enforce a commercial guaranty against Miriam Misle in her capacity as trustee of the Julius Misle Revocable Trust. The bank claimed that Julius had signed a guaranty in favor of the Bank, which guaranteed debt owed by a limited liability company. The district court determined that Julius' trust was liable for up to $500,000 in principal on the commercial guaranty and granted partial summary judgment in favor of the bank. After a trial, the district court found in favor of the bank and entered judgment in the amount of $500,000. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err when it granted partial summary judgment in the bank's favor and denied Miriam's motion for summary judgment; and (2) the district court's factual determination that the trust was liable for the full amount of the guaranty, $500,000, was supported by the evidence and was not clearly wrong. View "Hastings State Bank v. Misle" on Justia Law

Ruth Mansfield, the beneficiary of an inter vivos trust, died in 2005 after more than a decade of battling diffuse cerebrovascular disease. After Ruth's death, her estate sought payment of her last-illness expenses from the trust. The trustee declined. The county court concluded the trustee had properly denied payment of the medical bills because the purpose of the trust had ended with Ruth's death. The Supreme Court disagreed with the lower court's reasoning and remanded. On remand, the county court granted the trustee's and remainder beneficiaries' motions for summary judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that the trustee did not have a fiduciary duty imposed either through statute or the language of the trust to pay Ruth's medical expenses and did not abuse its discretion in declining to pay Ruth's medical expenses from the trust principal. View "In re Trust Created by Hansen" on Justia Law