Harring v. Gress, 295 Neb. 852

Background

Marcia Harring, on behalf of her son Justin, filed a contingent, unliquidated claim against her ex-husband Darin Gress’s estate seeking one-half of Justin’s reasonable secondary (post-secondary) educational expenses not covered by Justin’s savings, consistent with their 2009 divorce decree.
Darin died in May 2015; his estate is being administered in Thayer County with Janis and Fredrick Gress as co-personal representatives and Justin as an heir.
Marcia presented the claim to the estate on August 4, 2015; the estate disallowed the claim.
Marcia sued in district court to have the claim allowed, to have a lien or constructive trust imposed on estate assets to secure payment, and for attorneys’ fees; she also alleged the personal representatives breached fiduciary duties by disallowing the claim.
The district court granted the estate’s motion to dismiss, concluding Marcia’s claim was not ripe because the amount of ‘‘reasonable’’ expenses, availability of savings or financial aid, Justin’s share of the estate, and whether expenses would be incurred were unknown.
The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed, holding the claim-presentation statutes require presenting contingent or unliquidated claims now and that ripeness did not bar Marcia’s action; the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Marcia’s contingent/unliquidated claim against the estate is ripe for judicial resolution	Marcia argued statutory scheme (claim presentment statutes) permits and requires presentment of contingent/unliquidated claims and allows court action despite uncertainties	Estate argued claim is unripe because key facts (amount of expenses, available savings, financial aid, whether expenses will be incurred) are unknown and thus premature	Court held the action is ripe: statutes permit presentment of contingent/unliquidated claims and dismissal for ripeness was improper; reversed and remanded
Whether a constructive trust or lien should be imposed now to secure the claimed obligation	Marcia sought allowance of the claim and imposition of lien or constructive trust to secure payment	Estate argued existing trust/estate mechanisms and beneficiary rights (Justin as heir) make constructive trust unnecessary and relief premature	Court did not decide merits; remanded for further proceedings (dismissal on ripeness grounds reversed)
Whether Marcia may pursue fiduciary-breach claims against personal representatives for disallowing the claim	Marcia alleged fiduciary duty to pay lawful claims and breach by disallowance	Estate contended fiduciary duties/beneficiary remedies (trust actions by Justin) render Marcia’s action inappropriate or premature	Court did not resolve merits; case remanded to address claims on their facts after allowance process proceeds
Whether the district court erred in finding Justin was a vested beneficiary entitled to a specified share of the estate under pleadings	Marcia disputed district court’s factual/legal assumption about Justin’s fixed share under the estate/dec re e	Estate relied on earlier court statements and probate status to justify the district court’s view	Court noted record on motion to dismiss limited to pleadings and that the decree as pleaded does not necessarily create the obligation the district court assumed; remanded for factual development

Key Cases Cited

Litherland v. Jurgens, 291 Neb. 775 (district court’s grant of motion to dismiss reviewed de novo)
Shepard v. Houston, 289 Neb. 399 (ripeness doctrine and courts avoiding premature adjudication)