In re Estate of Anderson
311 Neb. 758
| Neb. | 2022Background
- Krystal J. Collins obtained informal probate of Carroll M. Anderson’s January 27, 2021 will and letters appointing her personal representative; the will disinherited decedent’s children Roger D. Anderson and Carol J. Noble and named Collins beneficiary of payable-on-death accounts. The estate was valued at roughly $700,000 (≈ $361,000 real estate; ≈ $341,000 POD accounts).
- Anderson and Noble filed objections alleging lack of capacity, undue influence, and misconduct; they offered a 2002 will favoring them and sought formal probate, removal/restriction of Collins, appointment of a special administrator, and formal determination of will validity.
- Anderson and Noble served a notice transferring the will contest to district court under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2429.01; the district clerk received the file, and the district court thereby obtained jurisdiction “over the proceeding on the contest.”
- The county court nevertheless held a hearing on the appellants’ petition for a special administrator and restraining order, then ordered that the transfer divested it of jurisdiction and denied the petitions without ruling on their merits, relying on In re Estate of Miller.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court granted review on appeal, holding (1) the county court’s denial of a special administrator and restraining order is a final, appealable order, and (2) the county court retained jurisdiction to decide those requests despite the transfer of the will contest to district court; the case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Anderson & Noble) | Defendant's Argument (Collins) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the county court’s denial of appointment of a special administrator and restraining order is a final, appealable order | Denial affects substantial rights (cannot later undo harm from lack of preservation during contest) and therefore is final and immediately appealable | Order is not final because appellants are plainly disinherited and affected rights can be vindicated on appeal after final judgment | Held: Denial is a final, appealable order; appointment denials and restraining requests under § 30-2457 affect substantial rights and cannot be vindicated later on appeal (reversed and remanded) |
| Whether transfer of the will contest to district court under § 30-2429.01 divests the county court of jurisdiction to appoint a special administrator or restrain the personal representative during the transferred contest | County court retains original probate jurisdiction to protect and preserve the estate (special administrators and restraining orders lie outside the narrow transferred contest) | Transfer gives district court jurisdiction over all proceedings related to the contest, divesting county court of authority until remand | Held: Transfer is limited to determining will validity; county court was not divested of jurisdiction to consider special-administrator and restraining requests and erred in declining to decide them |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of Miller, 231 Neb. 723, 437 N.W.2d 793 (Neb. 1989) (discussed transfer to district court and scope of district court authority in a will contest)
- In re Estate of Muncillo, 280 Neb. 669, 789 N.W.2d 37 (Neb. 2010) (order denying appointment of a special administrator is final and appealable)
- In re Estate of Lakin, 310 Neb. 271, 965 N.W.2d 365 (Neb. 2021) (denial of removal/surcharge and appointment of successor or special administrator is final)
- In re Estate of Beltran, 310 Neb. 174, 964 N.W.2d 714 (Neb. 2021) (discusses final-order analysis in probate and what rights can be vindicated on appeal)
- Bohling v. Bohling, 309 Neb. 625, 962 N.W.2d 224 (Neb. 2021) (construes § 30-2429.01 as conferring on district court authority limited to determining will validity)