In re Estate of Beltran
310 Neb. 174
| Neb. | 2021Background:
- Decedent Armengol Beltran died in 2016; surviving children include Mario (appellant) and Marina Beltran-Barrett (appellee).
- Marina was named on several of Armengol’s accounts (joint holder or payable-on-death) and had received loans from Rosa and Armengol; Mario alleged Marina (and her husband Bruce) misappropriated funds and failed to repay loans.
- Mario subpoenaed Bruce for decades of tax returns; Bruce declined to produce them and a motion to compel was denied by the county court.
- Mario then filed a "Verified Petition for Instruction" under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-402 asking the court to require investigation by the personal representative and to cite Marina for accounting; the probate court denied the petition on procedural grounds and did not reach the merits.
- Mario appealed; the Nebraska Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of a final, appealable order, holding the denial was effectively a nonfinal discovery-type order that did not affect a substantial right.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the county court's denial a final, appealable order? | Mario: Order is final and appealable; he needs immediate review. | Marina: Denial was a discovery-type/interlocutory order that did not affect a substantial right. | Court: Not final; appeal dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. |
| Did Mario comply with § 30-402 procedural requirements? | Mario: He properly invoked § 30-402 in his petition. | Marina/Probate Ct.: Petition did not conform to § 30-402 procedures. | Probate ct. found noncompliance; Supreme Ct. did not reach merits due to nonfinality. |
| Could court cite and examine Marina under § 30-402 as Mario requested? | Mario: Court should cite Marina to appear and account under § 30-402. | Marina: Procedure and party thresholds weren’t satisfied; request was improper. | Probate ct. denied request; Supreme Ct. declined to resolve on merits because order was interlocutory. |
| Could the court instruct the personal representative as Mario sought? | Mario: Court should order PR to investigate claims and instruct actions. | Marina: Relief sought was beyond § 30-402 or improper procedure. | Probate ct. refused to provide the requested instructions; Supreme Ct. dismissed appeal for lack of final order. |
| Was denial of Mario’s motion to compel Bruce’s documents appealable? | Mario: Denial of motion to compel was erroneous and appealable. | Marina: Discovery denial is interlocutory and not a substantial-right-affecting final order. | Court treated discovery-denial as nonfinal here; appeal dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Furstenfeld v. Pepin, 287 Neb. 12 (2013) (discovery orders are generally interlocutory but appealable if they affect a substantial right)
- In re Estate of Rose, 273 Neb. 490 (2007) (preliminary probate determinations not final if they do not end a discrete phase)
- In re Estate of Potthoff, 273 Neb. 828 (2007) (order resolving ownership of specific property was final because it ended that discrete issue)
- In re Estate of McKillip, 284 Neb. 367 (2012) (order directing sale of estate land is final because it affects devisees’ substantial rights)
- In re Estate of Larson, 308 Neb. 240 (2021) (overruling objections without approving final accounting is nonfinal)
- In re Estate of Bloedorn, 135 Neb. 261 (1938) (predecessor to § 30-402 viewed as discovery-oriented, not a vehicle to seize property)
- In re Estate of Abbott-Ochsner, 299 Neb. 596 (2018) (definition and scope of substantial rights in probate-finality analysis)