Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court finding that Tonya Edwards and Jennifer Edwards failed to state a claim for contribution or indemnity and denying the Edwardses' claim for subrogation, holding that there was no error.The Edwardses, as assignees of Douglas County, brought complaints against the estate of Kenneth Clark seeking to recover expenses that County incurred in defending and settling lawsuits the Edwardses brought against it for allegedly responding negligently to acts of assault and battery committed by Clark. The district court concluded that the County was immune under the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act from claims arising out of battery, and therefore, the County did not have a common liability with Clark's estate. The court thus denied the claims for contribution or indemnity and for subrogation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in dismissing the Edwardses' complaint. View "Edwards v. Estate of Clark" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's appeal from an order of the county court that ruled on Appellant's petition for trust administration, holding that the order from which Appellant attempted to appeal was not a final order.Appellant filed a petition for trust administration proceeding with regarding to a family trust. After the county court entered its order ruling on the petition Appellant appealed. The court of appeals dismissed the appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the county court's ruling was not a final order in the trust administration proceeding; and (2) therefore, this Court lacked jurisdiction to hear this appeal. View "In re Estate of Scaletta" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the probate court denying a petition to assess state inheritance tax under Neb. Rev. Stat. 77-2002(1)(b) on real property that Decedents had deeded to their daughter (Daughter) decades prior while continuing to exercise control over and paying taxes on the property until they died, holding that the property was subject to Nebraska inheritance tax under section 77-2002(1)(b).Daughter brought this petition to assess state inheritance taxes on the subject real property. The county court concluded that the property should not be included in the Decedents' estate for purposes of inheritance tax because it was not "intended to take effect in possession or enjoyment, after his or her death." The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the stipulated facts showed that Decedents intended to retain possession and enjoyment of the property until death; and (2) therefore, the property was subject to Nebraska inheritance tax under section 77-2002(1)(b). View "In re Estate of Lofgreen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the county court declining to award prejudgment interest to the estate of Madeline A. Adlung (the Estate) following a remand to the county court for a redetermination of damages owed by Defendant, holding that there was no error in the district court's refusal to award interest on remand.Adelung's son, Kent Adelung, appealed from the decision of the county court finding him liable following an action for an equitable accounting sought by the Estate. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified. On remand, the Estate sought prejudgment interest. The county court denied the request. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the county court did not err in not applying prejudgment interest under Neb. Rev. Stat. 45-104 to the amount of the modified judgment on remand. View "In re Estate of Adelung" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated a portion of the district court's order in this will contest, holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to award attorney fees and expenses.The jury in this case found that the will at issue was invalid as the product of undue influence. The proponent of the will appealed, arguing that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict. The opponent of the will cross-appealed, challenging an award of attorney fees and expenses purportedly awarded under Neb. Rev. Stat. 30-2481 and 30-2482. The Supreme Court vacated the attorney fees and expenses portion of the order and otherwise affirmed, holding (1) the jury's undue influence finding was not unreasonable; (2) there was no error related to opposing counsel's reference to the admission of a challenged text message; and (3) the district court lacked jurisdiction to enter the award of attorney fees and expenses incurred in defending the will contest proceeding. View "In re Estate of Koetter" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the county court denying Nebraska Synod (Synod) of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America's complaint in intervention after a county court determined that the Synod was not Pella Evangelical Lutheran Church's charitable successor and assign, holding that the Synod did not prove it was a charitable successor of Pella.Before her death, Margaret L. Matthews established and amended a revocable trust wherein she made three bequests - one each to the Salvation Army and the Visting Nurse Association (VNA) and one to Pella. Each bequest encompassed the named beneficiary, as well as its charitable successors and assigns. Wells Fargo Bank, N.C., as trustee, filed a petition for declaratory judgment concerning Pella's existence. The county court ordered that Pella's share of the trust property be distributed pro rata to the Salvation Army and the VNA after concluding that Pella had ceased to exist and that Synod was not an appropriate successor to Pella. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Synod's assigned errors were without merit. View "In re Margaret L. Matthews Revocable Trust" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed in part, vacated in part, and reversed in part the judgment of the district court in favor of Plaintiffs in this lawsuit alleging negligence, unjust enrichment, and seeking a constructive trust, holding that the district court erred.In this lawsuit over the failure to change the beneficiary on the decedent's life insurance, Plaintiffs Michael Zook and Teresa Chramosta, as copersonal representatives of the estate of Robert Zook and in their individual capacities, and Robin Kuhlman, in her individual capacity, sued Jerry Zook, alleging unjust enrichment and seeking a constructive trust, and John Marshall, alleging negligence. The district court ruled in favor of Plaintiffs, found Defendants jointly and severally liable for $200,000, and imposed a constructive trust on the insurance proceeds in Jerry's possession. Marshall and Jerry appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed Marshall's appeal as a result of his death, reversed the district court's finding that Jerry was unjustly enriched and in imposing a constructive trust, and vacated the order imposing the constructive trust, holding that the district court erred on this issue. View "Zook v. Zook" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the county court finding that Appellants had committed breach of trust and had taken trust assets and ordering damages against Appellants by default judgment, holding that the findings of the county court were in conflict with the relief granted and did not conform to the law.After a trial, the court entered judgment against Appellants jointly and severally. Appellants filed a motion seeking a new trial for lack of personal jurisdiction, insufficiency of process, and insufficiency of service of process, which the trial court denied. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the county court's judgment was contrary to its own findings and that remand for further proceedings was required. View "In re Masek Family Trust" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the findings entered by the district court upon the court's determination that this case had been improperly reinstated after the district court voluntarily dismissed their case without prejudice, holding that the district court erred in dismissing this case.Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants, asserting two counts of undue influence and one count of fraud in the inducement regarding the devise of certain real estate by the parties' mother. Plaintiffs later filed a voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice. The trial court effectively treated the dismissal as a motion dismissing without prejudice then granted the motion. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to vacate/reinstate, which the court sustained. The district court then dismissed the case based upon Plaintiffs' previously filed voluntary dismissal without prejudice. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, at the time Plaintiffs filed their voluntary dismissal, a final submission had occurred, divesting Plaintiffs of their statutory ability to voluntarily dismiss their case under Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-601. View "Schaaf v. Schaaf" on Justia Law

Collins filed an application for informal probate of the decedent's will. The submitted will disinherited the decedent’s children, devised most of the estate to Collins, and appointed Collins as personal representative. The will was dated January 27, 2021; the decedent died on January 31. The county court granted Collins’ application, The children objected, alleging that the decedent lacked testamentary capacity and the decedent was under undue influence when he executed the 2021 will. They offered for formal probate a will, executed in 2002, under which they were to inherit the residue of the decedent’s estate. They sought an order restraining Collins from acting as personal representative.Before the court ruled on the requests, the children filed a notice of transfer to the district court. The county court found that the children’s petition commenced a formal testacy proceeding and that their notice of transfer effectuated a transfer of jurisdiction so that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on the requests for a special administrator and a restraining order. The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed. The fact that a district court has obtained, via the transfer of the will contest, “jurisdiction over the proceeding on the contest” does not divest the county court of its original jurisdiction in probate to protect the estate during the pendency of that will contest by considering the merits of a petition for a special administrator and request for a restraining order on the personal representative. View "In re Estate of Anderson" on Justia Law