In re Estate of Akerson, 309 Neb. 470

Nelda M. Akerson (d. June 6, 2017) executed a 2011 will devising $875,000 “to HAMILTON MANOR…for its unrestricted use, as determined by its Board of Directors,” and described the devises as charitable.
Hamilton Manor was a county-owned nursing facility operated by Hamilton County through a board of trustees (statutorily created); Akerson understood it as the beneficiary despite a corporate name appearing in records.
On December 1, 2016 (before Akerson’s death), Hamilton County and the board entered an Agreement with QCS to build a new facility and to transfer bed licenses and close Hamilton Manor by March 2018; Hamilton Manor remained operational on Akerson’s death.
After Akerson’s death, QCS completed the new facility (April 2018), Hamilton Manor ceased operations, the old building was demolished, and real property later sold; the board of trustees retained an account for winding up business.
Personal representative Ronald initially treated Hamilton Manor as the charitable beneficiary on tax filings, then petitioned (Sept. 2019) the probate court claiming the $875,000 devise lapsed; the probate court found the bequest lapsed and ordered distribution to the residuary.
The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed: it held the devise vested at death, did not lapse, awarded the funds to Hamilton County/board, and ordered interest at 12% per annum from January 5, 2019.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Ronald)	Defendant's Argument (Hamilton County / Board)	Held
Did the charitable bequest lapse because of the predeath Agreement to close Hamilton Manor?	The Agreement rendered Hamilton Manor unable to carry out the charitable purpose by death, so the gift failed (akin to condition subsequent).	The devise vested at death because Hamilton Manor was operating and its identity continued; future closure does not defeat vesting.	Gift vested at death; did not lapse.
If the gift failed, should cy pres be applied (award to similar charity) or gift go to residuary?	Petition sought residuary distribution (Ronald, residuary beneficiary).	County/board (and State) urged cy pres to honor charitable intent locally.	No need to apply cy pres because gift did not fail.
Are county/board entitled to interest on the pecuniary devise and from what date?	Ronald argued interest may be excused or qualified where delay arises from contest/petition.	County/board sought interest under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-24,102; personal representative’s petition caused delay.	Interest awarded at legal rate (12%) from Jan 5, 2019 (one year after appointment of PR).

In re Estate of Harrington, 151 Neb. 81 (1949) (seminal Nebraska case on gifts to nonfunctioning institutions; court distinguished facts).
In re Estate of Barger, 303 Neb. 817 (2019) (will "speaks" at death; principles of testamentary intent and interpretation).
Allebach v. City of Friend, 118 Neb. 781 (1929) (treatment of conditions subsequent and forfeiture where testator designated a specific use).
In re Estate of Lind, 314 Ill. App. 3d 1055 (2000) (discontinuance of charitable functions after will execution does not defeat gift if identity persists).
In re Boston Regional Medical Center, Inc., 410 F.3d 100 (1st Cir. 2005) (similar rule: cessation of active functions post-execution does not necessarily defeat devise).
Wood v. Lincoln General Hospital Assn., 205 Neb. 576 (1980) (favoring construction that effectuates charitable bequests).