Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Ralph Greb died in 2010. At issue in this case was the distribution of Ralph’s estate in kind to two beneficiaries, his son, Richard, and his daughter, Nanette. The county court overruled Richard’s and Nanette’s objections and approved the proposed distribution of the estate. Nanette appealed and Richard cross-appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed the county court’s order of distribution, holding (1) two multiple-party bank accounts were correctly excluded from the probate estate because Nanette failed to meet her burden of proving a lack of survivorship rights; (2) because a corporation dissolved by the state for failure to pay taxes continued as a de facto corporation, Ralph’s gifts of corporate stock during his lifetime were not part of his probate estate; and (3) because Nanette was not obligated to pay indebtedness owed to the estate by her spouse, the county court did not err in ordering distribution of the asset in kind to both Richard and Nanette. View "In re Estate of Greb" on Justia Law

Constance created an LLC and a revocable trust. Constance transferred her real estate to the LLC and directed that, upon her death, her remaining property be transferred to the Trust. After Constance's death, her son David, as trustee of the Trust and as manager of the LLC, filed a declaratory action to allow the sale of the real estate pursuant to the Trust. Constance's other children, as beneficiaries of the Trust and members of the LLC, filed counterclaims for a declaratory judgment that the LLC should govern disposition of the real property and sought an accounting. The district court determined that the Trust would control the disposition and that David did not breach his fiduciary duties. The court of appeals affirmed. David subsequently moved for attorney fees and postjudgment interest, which the district court granted. The Supreme Court vacated the district court's order and denied the beneficiaries' request for attorney fees, holding (1) the award of attorney fees and costs was outside the scope of the mandate given by the court of appeals, and therefore, the district court was without jurisdiction to consider the motion; and (2) the beneficiaries were not entitled to attorney fees on the ground that David's motion was frivolous. View "Klingelhoefer v. Monif" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, relatives of Decedent, sought Attorney's services in the administration of Decedent's estate. Plaintiffs later brought this professional negligence case against Attorney and his firm (Defendants), claiming that Attorney failed properly to disclose a conflict of interest to Plaintiffs, Attorney erroneously advised Plaintiffs to execute disclaimers that should be regarded as invalid and ineffective, and Attorney caused the estate to incur additional taxes by failing to include the purportedly disclaimed property in the qualified terminable interest property election on the estate tax return. The district court (1) entered judgment in favor of Defendants on the conflict of interest claim, and (2) dismissed as time barred Plaintiffs' claims regarding the disclaimed property and associated tax return elections. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the judgment regarding the conflict of interest; but (2) reversed the judgments on Plaintiffs' remaining claims, holding that the district court erred when it concluded that the statute of limitations barred the claims. Remanded. View "Guinn v. Murray" on Justia Law

After Decedent died in 2010, her son, Robert, was appointed the personal representative of her estate. After Robert filed an inventory of estate property and a proposed schedule of distribution, Christy, the daughter of Decedent's other son, filed a motion for supervised administration, arguing that pursuant to Decedent's will, she was left an interest in Decedent's land but that Robert did not include this interest in the schedule of distribution. At issue before the probate court was what portion of Christy's interest in the estate was purchased by Mark, Robert's son, at a bankruptcy auction in 1998. The probate court concluded that Christy's interest in Decedent's share of the land was not transferred to Mark following the bankruptcy sale and approved Christy's motion for supervised administration. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the probate court did not err in finding Christy's motion for supervised administration tolled Christy's thirty-day deadline to object to the distribution of assets; (2) the probate court had jurisdiction to resolve the question of what was sold at Christy's bankruptcy auction as it related to Decedent's estate; and (3) the probate court made the correct determination regarding what Christy was entitled to through Decedent's estate. View "In re Estate of Odenreider" on Justia Law

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