In re Estate of Fuchs
297 Neb. 667
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Gilbert R. Fuchs died May 29, 2012, survived by four children (Jim, Joseph, Julie, Jason); his papers were disorganized across two homes and vehicles.
- Jim and Joseph applied for and received informal appointment as copersonal representatives for Gilbert’s intestate estate on June 12, 2012, representing no unrevoked will had been found after reasonable diligence.
- No will was located during initial searches; on July 8, 2015, Joseph received by mail a 1987 will leaving the estate to Jim and delivered it to him.
- Jim filed for formal probate of the 1987 will on July 15, 2015 (more than 3 years after Gilbert’s death); Julie and Jason objected and moved for summary judgment, arguing § 30-2408 barred the late probate and asserting estoppel and laches defenses.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the objectors, holding Jim’s petition was time-barred under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2408, and that Jim failed to prove equitable estoppel or 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 was pending but not finally completed | § 30-2408 should not bar probate because the prior informal proceeding was not fully adjudicated; the statute’s comments show prior proceedings must finally adjudicate rights | § 30-2408 bars probate once a prior formal or informal proceeding has occurred within 3 years; “occur” does not require completion | Court held the plain language means any prior probate proceeding that has occurred (commenced) within 3 years bars later probate; application was time-barred |
| Whether equitable estoppel prevents application of the 3-year limit where the will was allegedly suppressed | Jim argued the will was deliberately suppressed by an heir and that suppression should estop the objectors from invoking the statute | Objectors argued there was no evidence they concealed the will or intended suppression; searches and access to property were shared | Court found insufficient evidence of concealment, intent, or reliance required for equitable estoppel; summary judgment on this ground affirmed |
| Whether equitable tolling applies to extend the 3-year period | Jim argued equitable tolling should excuse delay due to the disorganized state of decedent’s papers and late discovery | Objectors argued Jim initiated probate promptly and was not prevented by any external restraint; equitable tolling requires due diligence by claimant | Court held equitable tolling did not apply: Jim commenced informal proceedings soon after death and showed no barrier or lack of diligence warranting tolling |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomas v. Board of Trustees, 296 Neb. 726 (sets summary judgment review standard)
- Clarke v. First Nat. Bank of Omaha, 296 Neb. 632 (discusses § 30-2408 limitations and exceptions)
- In re Estate of Nemetz, 273 Neb. 918 (interpreting commencement exception to § 30-2408)
- In re Estate of Harris, 379 Mont. 474 (Montana case applying a UPC-like 3-year rule and exception)
- Bryan M. v. Anne B., 292 Neb. 725 (defines elements of equitable estoppel)
- Macke v. Jungels, 102 Neb. 123 (equitable tolling where claimant was restrained from proceeding)
- Lincoln Joint Stock Land Bank v. Barnes, 143 Neb. 58 (equitable tolling where plaintiff was enjoined from proceeding)
- Brodine v. Blue Cross Blue Shield, 272 Neb. 713 (limited application of tolling during pendency of another action)