In re Estate of Fuchs, 297 Neb. 667

Decedent Gilbert Fuchs died May 29, 2012, survived by four children (Jim, Joseph, Julie, Jason); his papers were disorganized across two homes and vehicles.
Within a week of Gilbert’s death (June 12, 2012), Jim and Joseph filed an application for informal appointment as copersonal representatives, alleging diligent search had found no will; they were appointed.
On July 8, 2015, Joseph received by mail a 1987 will naming Jim as sole beneficiary and personal representative; Joseph gave the will to Jim, who filed for formal probate July 15, 2015.
Julie and Jason objected, asserting the formal probate was time-barred by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2408 (3-year limit), that Jim was estopped from seeking probate, and that estate administration had proceeded under intestacy.
The district court granted summary judgment for the objectors, holding the formal probate was barred because an earlier informal proceeding had “occurred” within three years, and that Jim failed to prove equitable estoppel or equitable tolling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Jim)	Defendant's Argument (Julie & Jason)	Held
Applicability of § 30-2408 3‑year bar	Prior informal probate had not been finally adjudicated, so exception to the 3‑year bar applies	Any prior informal or formal proceeding that occurred within 3 years bars later probate; prior proceeding need not be completed	Court: "occur" means any prior proceeding commenced; formal probate filed >3 years after death is time‑barred
Equitable estoppel to overcome statute	Will was deliberately suppressed by an heir (or person with access), so objectors should be estopped from invoking the statute	No evidence objectors concealed or knew of the will; searches were conducted by all heirs	Court: Jim failed to present evidence of concealment, knowledge, or intent; estoppel not proved
Equitable tolling of limitations	Statute should be tolled because documents were disorganized and will was not discoverable earlier	Jim commenced the informal probate promptly and was not prevented by any authority; no basis for tolling	Court: Equitable tolling requires due diligence and some disabling circumstance; Jim was not entitled to tolling
Summary judgment standard	(procedural) Disputed facts create triable issues	Evidence insufficient to raise genuine issue; conclusions speculative	Court: Grant of summary judgment affirmed; conjecture insufficient to avoid summary judgment

Thomas v. Board of Trustees, 296 Neb. 726 (appellate summary judgment standard)
Clarke v. First Nat. Bank of Omaha, 296 Neb. 632 (construction and effect of § 30-2408)
In re Estate of Nemetz, 273 Neb. 918 (application of probate timing exceptions)
In re Estate of Harris, 379 Mont. 474 (UCT‑style 3‑year rule and prior proceedings exception)
Bryan M. v. Anne B., 292 Neb. 725 (elements of equitable estoppel)
Macke v. Jungels, 102 Neb. 123 (equitable tolling where action was enjoined)