In re Estate of Radford, 297 Neb. 748

Background

Sheila Foxley Radford executed an amended and restated trust in 2010 leaving the residuary to four children (one-half to Brigid; one-sixth each to Mary, William, and Christopher). Sheila died in 2014.
In 2007 Sheila wired $200,000 to a title company for Mary’s home; Mary signed a handwritten note acknowledging the $200,000 and stating she recognized it as an inheritance.
Provident Trust Company (trustee) filed an application for direction under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2350 asking whether the 2007 gift constituted ademption by satisfaction of Mary’s trust share.
At the county court hearing the trustee did not present sworn testimony or admit exhibits; counsel summarized facts and asked the court to "take judicial notice of the record." Mary appeared pro se by telephone and did not clearly stipulate to counsel’s factual recital.
The county court concluded § 30-2350 applied, treated the 2007 gift as an advancement/ademption by satisfaction, and reduced Mary’s trust share to zero; Mary appealed.
The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding the record lacked admissible evidence supporting the county court’s factual findings and that the trustee failed to meet its evidentiary burden.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 30-2350 (statute about satisfaction/advancement) applies to trusts	Mary: § 30-2350 should not be applied to alter the express terms of the trust without proper evidence	Trustee: § 30-2350 governs and Mary’s contemporaneous writing shows the 2007 gift was an advancement of her inheritance	Court did not resolve statute-on-trust merits on the facts; remanded because record lacked admissible evidence to support application of § 30-2350
Whether a pre‑trust gift can operate as ademption by satisfaction of a later restated trust share	Mary: A gift made before the trust should not adeem her later trust share absent proof of intent to satisfy the trust devise	Trustee: The gift plus Mary’s contemporaneous writing showing she recognized it as inheritance proves it satisfied her future trust share	Court declined to decide on the merits due to insufficient evidence; remanded for new hearing so facts can be proved
Whether Mary’s handwritten note and trustee’s pleadings/exhibits were admissible proof	Mary: The note and pleadings were not properly admitted into evidence; counsel’s oral statements and an ambiguous assent do not substitute for evidence	Trustee: The note and pleadings (and counsel’s factual summary) provided the record and the court could judicially notice them	Court held pleadings and unsworn statements are not evidence; judicial notice was not properly invoked or documented; record insufficient
Whether the county court could resolve the motion without sworn testimony or admitted exhibits	Mary: Court needed sworn testimony or admitted documents; parties did not make an unequivocal stipulation	Trustee: Court could rely on counsel’s representations and the file as the record	Court held oral summaries and ambiguous agreement were not judicial admissions or adequate substitutes; reversed and remanded for a hearing with admissible evidence

Key Cases Cited

Hargesheimer v. Gale, 294 Neb. 123 (Neb. 2016) (meaningful appellate review requires a record explaining factors behind lower court’s decision)
In re Robert L. McDowell Revocable Trust, 296 Neb. 565 (Neb. 2017) (standard for appellate review of trust administration matters)
Bergmeier v. Bergmeier, 296 Neb. 440 (Neb. 2017) (appellate review de novo when equity questions are presented)
Hynes v. Good Samaritan Hosp., 285 Neb. 985 (Neb. 2013) (trial court must create a record showing the factual basis for decisions)
Reicheneker v. Reicheneker, 264 Neb. 682 (Neb. 2002) (judicial admissions substitute for evidence but must be clear and unequivocal)
Strunk v. Chromy-Strunk, 270 Neb. 917 (Neb. 2006) (courts should identify and make part of the record any documents judicially noticed)