In re Estate of Koetter, 980 N.W.2d 376

Walter R. Koetter (d. 2017) executed a 2014 will and contemporaneous deeds that substantially favored son Richard A. “Dickie” Koetter and son Douglas over other children. Dickie was nominated personal representative.
Daughter Debra J. Meyers contested probate in county court alleging undue influence; the contest was transferred to district court under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2429.01.
Trial focused solely on whether the 2014 will was the product of undue influence; a jury found the will invalid.
At trial, witnesses described Walter as increasingly passive and dependent on Dickie, changes in family interactions, attorney contacts shortly before the 2014 will, and a disputed text message that was referenced in cross-examination but never admitted into evidence.
The district court denied Koetter’s postverdict motions but awarded him $196,914.47 in attorney fees and expenses under Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 30-2481 and 30-2482.
On appeal the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the jury verdict rejecting Koetter’s challenges to the undue-influence finding and the text-message handling, but vacated the district court’s fee award for lack of jurisdiction and dismissed the cross-appeal.

Issue	Meyers' Argument	Koetter's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence of undue influence (including denial of directed verdict/JNOV/new trial)	Evidence (decline, dependence on Dickie, behavioral changes, communications coached by Dickie) supported inference of undue influence	No proof testator was mentally/physically impaired or otherwise susceptible; evidence insufficient	Jury verdict sustained; competent circumstantial evidence supported undue-influence finding; postverdict motions properly denied
Cross-examination and closing argument referencing an unadmitted text message	Question to expert was a permissible hypothetical assuming facts that counsel intended to prove; closing commentary argued credibility issues	Question and expert answer should have been stricken; jury prejudiced; new trial required; plain error	Trial court acted within discretion to allow hypothetical questioning; no abuse of discretion or plain error; no new trial warranted
District court authority to award attorney fees under §§ 30-2481/30-2482	The district court lacked jurisdiction to award reimbursement under § 30-2481; such awards are part of probate review committed to county court	District court had jurisdiction over the transferred will contest and could award fees	Fee award vacated: determination under § 30-2481/30-2482 belongs to county court; district court order awarding fees void and vacated

In re Estate of Barger, 303 Neb. 817 (Neb. 2019) (sets elements for undue influence and discusses circumstantial inference)
In re Estate of Clinger, 292 Neb. 237 (Neb. 2015) (defines undue influence as substitution of another’s purpose for testator’s free agency)
In re Estate of Hedke, 278 Neb. 727 (Neb. 2009) (discusses secrecy and circumstantial nature of undue-influence proof)
Bohling v. Bohling, 309 Neb. 625 (Neb. 2021) (limits district court authority in transferred will contests to matters bearing on validity)
Coriell v. Industrial Com., 83 Ill.2d 105 (Ill. 1980) (trial court may permit cross-exam hypothetical based on facts not yet in evidence)
In re Estate of Miller, 231 Neb. 723 (Neb. 1989) (addressed county vs. district court authority over fee awards in transferred contests)