Brinkman v. Brinkman, 923 N.W.2d 380

Testator Michael R. Brinkman died leaving two known children: Nicole (older) and Seth (younger). Seth’s mother, Kimberly Millus, is the personal representative of the estate.
Will’s relevant provisions: Article I defined “son” as Seth and defined “children”/“issue” to include Seth and any children born or adopted after execution; Article V devised the residue to “my issue, per stirpes.” Nicole was not named.
Nicole filed a declaratory-judgment action in district court seeking a ruling that she is entitled to one-half of the residue (as an heir/issue).
The estate (Seth and Millus) moved for summary judgment, arguing the will unambiguously limited “issue” to Seth and post-execution children, effectively disinheriting Nicole; the district court agreed and granted summary judgment for the estate.
After supplemental briefing, the Supreme Court identified and addressed a jurisdictional-priority issue: a probate action concerning the same will was pending in county court before Nicole filed in district court and remained pending.
The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the district court, holding the county court had jurisdictional priority and directing dismissal of the district-court declaratory action without prejudice.

Issue	Nicole’s Argument	Estate’s Argument	Held
Whether the district court could decide declaratory action construing the will while a county-court probate action on the same will remained pending	Nicole argued the district court had jurisdiction to decide a declaratory-judgment action under § 25-21,150 and that district courts have power to construe wills	Estate argued county court had (exclusive) original jurisdiction over probate and will construction under county-court statutes	County and district courts have concurrent jurisdiction over will construction, but under the doctrine of jurisdictional priority the county court—having first acquired jurisdiction in the pending probate—retained priority; district court erred and case must be dismissed without prejudice
Whether the district court should reach the merits (will ambiguity/disinheritance)	Nicole argued the will did not expressly disinherit her and was ambiguous regarding “issue”	Estate argued the will unambiguously defined “issue” to include only Seth and any subsequently born/adopted children, excluding Nicole	Court did not reach merits; dismissed district action on jurisdictional-priority grounds so merits remain for the court with priority (county court)

Jesse B. v. Tylee H., 293 Neb. 973, 883 N.W.2d 1 (2016) (jurisdictional-priority doctrine applied where concurrent courts had pending actions)
Charleen J. v. Blake O., 289 Neb. 454, 855 N.W.2d 587 (2014) (explains standards for jurisdictional priority and when two matters present the same "whole issue")
Ptak v. Swanson, 271 Neb. 57, 709 N.W.2d 337 (2006) (district court power to construe wills in declaratory-judgment actions)
In re Estate of Steppuhn, 221 Neb. 329, 377 N.W.2d 83 (1985) (discusses relationship of county and district court jurisdiction over probate and equity matters)