In re Estate of Beltran, 310 Neb. 174

Armengol Beltran died in 2016 and a probate estate was opened; his children include Mario (appellant) and Marina (appellee).
Mario alleges Marina (and her husband Bruce) removed or received funds from decedent’s accounts and failed to repay loans; Mario sought Bruce’s tax returns via deposition duces tecum.
The county court denied Mario’s motion to compel production of Bruce’s tax returns and Mario then filed a Verified Petition for Instruction under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-402 seeking an order directing the personal representative to investigate and to cite Marina to appear and account.
At a hearing the probate court denied Mario’s petition, concluding it did not conform to § 30-402 or the procedures of § 30-2465 and declining to reach the substance of Mario’s allegations.
Mario appealed; the appellate courts (on jurisdictional review) and then the Nebraska Supreme Court considered whether the order denying the petition was a final, appealable order.
The Supreme Court held the probate court’s order was interlocutory (not final), did not affect a substantial right, and dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the order denying the § 30-402 petition was final and appealable	Mario: denial is a final order subject to immediate appeal	Marina: denial was an interlocutory, discovery-type order that did not affect a substantial right	Court: not final; order was interlocutory and did not affect a substantial right; appeal dismissed
Whether the probate court erred in denying Mario’s § 30-402 petition to cite Marina and instruct the personal representative	Mario: petition complied with § 30-402 and court should cite Marina and direct investigation	Probate/Marina: petition did not follow § 30-402 procedure; Mario lacked the proper role to invoke § 30-2465; PR was not the proper respondent	Court: did not reach merits because order was not final; probate court’s procedural ruling was interlocutory
Whether the denial of Mario’s motion to compel Bruce’s tax returns was appealable	Mario: motion to compel should have been granted; denial supports appeal	Bruce/Marina: denial is a discovery ruling and not a final, appealable order	Court: discovery denial is interlocutory and not appealable here; not a substantial-right effect

Furstenfeld v. Pepin, 287 Neb. 12 (2013) (discovery-type orders in probate are generally interlocutory unless they affect a substantial right)
In re Estate of Bloedorn, 135 Neb. 261 (1938) (predecessor to § 30-402 is discovery-oriented and does not authorize seizure or disposition of estate property)
In re Estate of Rose, 273 Neb. 490 (2007) (preliminary determinations that are part of a later phase of probate are not final if the discrete phase is not concluded)
In re Estate of Potthoff, 273 Neb. 828 (2007) (a ruling that fully resolves whether property is part of the probate estate can be a final, appealable order)
In re Estate of McKillip, 284 Neb. 367 (2012) (an order directing sale of estate real property affected devisees’ substantive rights and was final)
In re Estate of Larson, 308 Neb. 240 (2021) (an order overruling objections to an accounting was not final where the final accounting phase remained open)