In re Estate of Fuchs, 297 Neb. 667

Background

Gilbert R. Fuchs died May 29, 2012, survived by four adult children (Jim, Joseph, Julie, Jason); his papers were disorganized and scattered between two homes and vehicles.
Within one week of Gilbert’s death (June 12, 2012) Jim and Joseph filed an application for informal appointment as copersonal representatives alleging no will was found; they were appointed.
On July 8, 2015 Joseph received in the mail Gilbert’s 1987 will (bequeathing the estate to Jim) and delivered it to Jim; Jim filed for formal probate July 15, 2015 (more than three years after death).
Julie and Jason objected, moved for summary judgment, and asserted the 3-year limitations bar under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2408, estoppel based on reliance and administration under intestacy, and that estate distributions precluded later probate.
The district court granted summary judgment for the objectors, holding Jim’s petition was time barred, and that he had not shown equitable estoppel or facts warranting equitable tolling.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Jim)	Defendant's Argument (Julie & Jason)	Held
Whether § 30-2408’s 3-year bar applies when an earlier informal probate proceeding was not fully completed	A prior informal proceeding must have finally adjudicated rights (i.e., been completed) before it can trigger the bar’s exception; because the informal probate was not completed, the 3-year bar should not apply	A prior proceeding need only have been commenced during the 3-year period to trigger the bar; completion is not required	The court held the statute’s plain language means a prior formal or informal proceeding that has occurred (i.e., was commenced) within 3 years bars later probate; Jim’s 2015 petition was time barred.
Whether equitable estoppel prevents application of the 3-year bar because the will was allegedly suppressed	Jim claimed someone (an heir or helper) deliberately concealed the will until after the 3-year period and therefore objectors should be estopped from asserting the limitations defense	Objectors denied knowledge or concealment and relied on Jim’s initial representations; no evidence linked them to intentional suppression	The court found no evidence of intentional concealment by objectors, no knowledge or false representation sufficient for estoppel; summary judgment against Jim on estoppel was affirmed.
Whether equitable tolling of the 3-year limitations period is warranted	Jim urged equitable tolling because of the chaotic condition of decedent’s papers and that he only discovered the will after the statutory period	Objectors argued Jim initiated probate promptly, alleged no will then, and was not prevented by any authoritative restraint from earlier filing; Jim lacked due diligence to delay filing	The court rejected equitable tolling: Jim’s early filing (within a week) alleging no will began the limitations running; no barrier (e.g., injunction or governmental restraint) prevented timely action, and Jim did not show required diligence.

Key Cases Cited

Clarke v. First Nat. Bank of Omaha, 296 Neb. 632 (Neb. 2017) (discusses § 30-2408 and limitations on probate proceedings)
In re Estate of Nemetz, 273 Neb. 918 (Neb. 2007) (examined § 30-2408 in context of probate timing)
In re Estate of Harris, 379 Mont. 474 (Mont. 2015) (interpreted UPC-style 3-year rule and exception where no prior proceedings had occurred)
Macke v. Jungels, 102 Neb. 123 (Neb. 1918) (early Nebraska equitable-tolling principles where a restraint prevented suit)
Brodine v. Blue Cross Blue Shield, 272 Neb. 713 (Neb. 2006) (limits of tolling during pendency of another action)