In re Estate of Etmund, 297 Neb. 455

Decedent Cora H. Etmund’s will appointed Cheryl A. Brown as personal representative and directed Brown to give the current farm tenant, Norris Talcott, the first opportunity to purchase the farmland “under commercially reasonable terms and conditions as he and [the personal representative] may agree.”
At death the property was agricultural and zoned agricultural; Brown obtained an appraisal valuing it at $785,859 based on agricultural use and negotiated a sale to Talcott for $900,000.
Devisees (petitioners: Holubar, P. Etmund, D. Etmund Sr., and Geistlinger) obtained a second appraisal valuing the land at $1,457,000 based on a highest-and-best-use residential development with interim agricultural use and petitioned to remove Brown and enjoin the sale.
The county court temporarily restrained closing, allowed petitioners to investigate, held a hearing weighing both appraisals, found Brown’s appraiser more credible, and denied removal.
On appeal the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed whether the will’s phrase “commercially reasonable terms” required valuing the land at highest and best use and whether Brown’s hiring/relience on her appraiser warranted removal; the Supreme Court affirmed the county court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether “commercially reasonable terms” in the will requires selling at the land’s highest-and-best-use (residential development) value	Petitioners: the phrase requires valuing land at highest and best use (residential development) to be commercially reasonable	Brown: phrase refers to negotiations between PR and tenant and does not mandate highest-and-best-use valuation	Court: Phrase is not ambiguous in context; it contemplates negotiation with the tenant farmer and does not compel highest-and-best-use valuation; no ambiguity and no error in county court finding
Whether Brown should be removed for hiring an appraiser who did not value the property for development	Petitioners: Brown’s appraiser admitted he was not qualified to appraise development land, so Brown mismanaged estate and should be removed	Brown: she had broad discretionary authority in will, reasonably relied on a qualified, disinterested certified appraiser and counsel, and statutes allow acting on advisors’ recommendations	Court: Brown acted within her discretion, employed a qualified, disinterested appraiser, and no cause for removal; county court’s credibility finding was not clearly erroneous

In re Estate of Nemetz, 273 Neb. 918 (2007) (discusses valuation and highest-and-best-use in probate contexts)
In re Estate of Shell, 290 Neb. 791 (2015) (interpretation of will language is a question of law for appellate review)
In re Estate of Webb, 20 Neb. App. 12 (2012) (prior probate decision addressing removal and valuation disputes)