In re Estate of Fuchs
297 Neb. 667
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Decedent Gilbert Fuchs died May 29, 2012, survived by four children: Jim, Joseph, Julie, and Jason.
- Within a week of Gilbert’s death (June 2012), Jim and Joseph filed an application for informal appointment as copersonal representatives alleging no will was found; they were appointed.
- In July 2015 Joseph received and delivered to Jim a 1987 will leaving everything to Jim; Jim filed for formal probate July 15, 2015 (more than 3 years after death).
- Julie and Jason objected, moved for summary judgment arguing the formal probate was time-barred under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2408, and asserted estoppel and that estate administration had proceeded under intestacy.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the objectors, finding the 3-year statute barred probate (a prior informal proceeding had occurred) and that Jim failed to prove equitable estoppel or equitable tolling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 30-2408’s 3-year limit bars formal probate when an earlier informal probate was commenced but not completed | Jim: limitation does not apply because the prior informal proceeding was not fully adjudicated | Objectors: any prior probate proceeding "occurred" within 3 years and triggers the bar | Held: "occurred" means commenced; prior informal proceeding within 3 years bars formal probate filed later |
| Whether equitable estoppel excuses the time bar (will was allegedly suppressed) | Jim: one heir suppressed the will; objectors are estopped from asserting the statute | Objectors: no evidence they knew of or concealed the will or intended suppression | Held: Jim failed to present evidence of concealment, knowledge, intent, or detrimental reliance; estoppel denied |
| Whether equitable tolling applies to extend the 3‑year period | Jim: chaotic recordkeeping and late discovery justify tolling | Objectors: no basis for tolling; Jim could have delayed initial filing or conducted further search | Held: equitable tolling requires due diligence; Jim was not prevented by external authority and is not entitled to tolling |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate | Jim: disputed facts (who suppressed will) create genuine issues | Objectors: no admissible evidence creates a triable issue | Held: summary judgment affirmed—the nonmoving party’s speculation insufficient to defeat summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomas v. Board of Trustees, 296 Neb. 726 (standards for reviewing summary judgment)
- Clarke v. First Nat. Bank of Omaha, 296 Neb. 632 (interpretation and application of § 30-2408 limits)
- In re Estate of Nemetz, 273 Neb. 918 (treatment of probate limitations where no prior proceeding was commenced)
- Bryan M. v. Anne B., 292 Neb. 725 (elements of equitable estoppel)
- In re Estate of Harris, 379 Mont. 474 (Montana court applying similar UPC provision on prior proceedings)