In re Estate of Fuchs
297 Neb. 667
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Decedent Gilbert R. Fuchs died May 29, 2012, survived by four children: Jim, Joseph, Julie, and Jason.
- Jim and Joseph promptly (June 12, 2012) filed for informal appointment as copersonal representatives of Gilbert’s intestate estate, stating no will was found after reasonable diligence; they were appointed.
- Documents from Gilbert’s cluttered homes were later collected into storage totes; some totes were removed by family members; no will was located initially.
- Joseph received Gilbert’s 1987 will in the mail on July 8, 2015 (postmarked Omaha) and delivered it to Jim; Jim filed for formal probate July 15, 2015 (over 3 years after death).
- Julie and Jason objected, moved for summary judgment asserting the action was barred by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2408 (3-year limit), and alleged estoppel and prejudice from prior intestate administration.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the objectors, finding the formal probate was time-barred, and that Jim failed to prove equitable estoppel or entitlement to equitable tolling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jim) | Defendant's Argument (Objectors) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 30-2408’s 3-year limit barred formal probate filed after an earlier informal proceeding began but was not completed | § 30-2408’s exception applies only if no prior proceeding adjudicating rights was fully completed; because informal proceeding had not finally adjudicated rights, formal probate is allowed | Any prior formal or informal probate proceeding that occurred within 3 years bars later probate — the statute requires only that a proceeding occurred, not that it was completed | Statute bars the late probate; a prior proceeding having "occurred" within 3 years is sufficient to invoke the bar |
| Whether equitable estoppel prevents application of the 3-year limit when the will was allegedly suppressed | The will was deliberately suppressed by an heir or other person; objectors should be estopped from invoking the statute | No evidence objectors knowingly concealed the will or made misrepresentations that misled Jim to his detriment | Jim failed to present evidence of concealment, knowledge, or misleading conduct; equitable estoppel not proven |
| Whether equitable tolling applies to extend the 3-year period | The statute should be tolled because the will was effectively hidden and the estate was in disarray, preventing timely discovery | Jim was not prevented by any external restraint; he initiated proceedings and had opportunities to search further; equitable tolling requires due diligence and no fault by claimant | Equitable tolling not available: Jim commenced the informal proceeding and was not prevented by any paramount authority; he failed to show the diligence needed to toll the limitations |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate on these claims | Factual disputes about who suppressed the will and searches preclude summary judgment | Evidence was insufficient (speculation) to create genuine issues supporting estoppel or tolling; statute’s plain language controlled | Summary judgment was proper; no genuine material facts supported equitable estoppel or tolling, and statute barred probate |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomas v. Board of Trustees, 296 Neb. 726 (Neb. 2017) (summary judgment standard)
- Clarke v. First Nat. Bank of Omaha, 296 Neb. 632 (Neb. 2017) (construction of § 30-2408 limits)
- In re Estate of Nemetz, 273 Neb. 918 (Neb. 2007) (application of § 30-2408 where no prior probate had been commenced)
- In re Estate of Harris, 379 Mont. 474 (Mont. 2015) (interpretation of Uniform Probate Code 3-year limit where no prior proceedings had been opened)
- Bryan M. v. Anne B., 292 Neb. 725 (Neb. 2016) (elements of equitable estoppel)