In re Estate of Brinkman, 308 Neb. 117

Decedent Michael R. Brinkman died leaving two children: Nicole (older) and Seth. Michael’s will named Kimberly Milius as personal representative; Nicole is not named in the will.
Article I defined “son” as Seth and stated references to “children” and/or “issue” shall include Seth and all children born or adopted after the will’s execution.
Article V devised the residue to the decedent’s “issue, per stirpes.” Article VII provides a fallback intestate distribution if no one is entitled under the will.
Nicole objected to probate and claimed a one-half undivided interest in the estate; the county court found the will patently ambiguous as to Nicole’s status and held she was not disinherited.
Milius (as personal representative and former next friend) and Seth appealed; Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the county court, rejecting arguments that Nicole was excluded.

Issue	Nicole's Argument	Milius/Seth's Argument	Held
Whether the appellate court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal	The appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction based on the parties’ statuses	§30-1601(2) allows any party or person affected by the final order (Seth as heir; Milius as personal representative) to appeal	Court has jurisdiction; appeal permitted under §30-1601(2) and Seth was affected as an heir
Whether the will unambiguously disinherits Nicole (construction of “children”/“issue”)	The will is ambiguous; “issue” should be read to include both Nicole and Seth so Nicole inherits	The will is unambiguous and, by naming only Seth and later-born/adopted children, Michael intended to disinherit Nicole	The word “include” creates a patent ambiguity; court construes the will to give effect to testator’s intent and holds Nicole is not disinherited and takes as an issue/child

Brinkman v. Brinkman, 302 Neb. 315, 923 N.W.2d 380 (2019) (prior decision addressing jurisdictional posture of this matter)
In re Estate of Adelung, 306 Neb. 646, 947 N.W.2d 269 (2020) (subject-matter jurisdiction and statutory interpretation are questions of law)
In re Estate of Barger, 303 Neb. 817, 931 N.W.2d 660 (2019) (will/trust interpretation reviewed as a question of law)
Timberlake v. Douglas County, 291 Neb. 387, 865 N.W.2d 788 (2015) (the word “include” ordinarily introduces a non-exhaustive list)
In re Estate of Mousel, 271 Neb. 628, 715 N.W.2d 490 (2006) (parol evidence inadmissible for will interpretation absent latent ambiguity)
Jacobsen v. Farnham, 155 Neb. 776, 53 N.W.2d 917 (1952) (heirs favored; disinheritance must be express or by necessary implication)