In re Estate of Radford, 297 Neb. 748

Background

Sheila Foxley Radford executed a restated trust in 2010 whose residuary was to be divided: 1/2 to Brigid and 1/6 each to Mary, William, and Christopher. Sheila died in 2014.
In 2007 Sheila transferred $200,000 to Mary (wire to title company); Mary signed a handwritten note contemporaneously acknowledging the $200,000 as an inheritance.
Provident Trust Company (trustee) filed an application for direction (Nov. 2015) asking whether the 2007 gift satisfied Mary’s share of the later-restated Trust under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2350 (ademption by satisfaction).
At the county court hearing the trustee’s counsel summarized facts and asked the court to take judicial notice of the record; no exhibits were admitted and no witnesses testified under oath; Mary appeared pro se by phone and did not expressly stipulate that counsel’s factual summary substituted for evidence.
The county court treated Mary’s 2007 handwritten acknowledgment as an operative contemporaneous writing under § 30-2350, held the gift satisfied her one-sixth trust share, and denied Mary any distribution. Mary appealed.
The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed and remanded, finding the county court lacked an adequate evidentiary record (no admissible exhibits or sworn testimony, and improper/insufficient judicial notice or stipulation) to support its ruling.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 30-2350 applies to a trust distribution question	Mary: § 30-2350 (statute on advancement/ademption by satisfaction) should not control trust disposition overriding the trust language	Trustee: § 30-2350 applies where a contemporaneous writing shows a gift was an advancement of inheritance, so it can adeem a later trust gift	Court did not decide the statute’s substantive applicability on the merits because the record lacked sufficient evidence; case remanded for new hearing
Whether a pre-trust gift can adeem a later trust interest (ademption by satisfaction)	Mary: A gift made before the restatement should not adeem the explicit trust residuary language stating Mary gets 1/6	Trustee: The 2007 gift plus Mary’s contemporaneous acknowledgment satisfy the inheritance and should reduce/adeem her trust share	Not reached on the merits due to insufficient evidence; remanded for evidentiary hearing
Whether Mary’s handwritten 2007 note constituted a valid contemporaneous writing under § 30-2350	Mary: Her brief “no dispute” comment at hearing did not constitute a judicial admission; the note was not properly admitted into evidence at the hearing	Trustee: The note and the parties’ statements established a contemporaneous writing acknowledging the gift as inheritance, supporting ademption	Court found the note and hearing colloquy were not admitted as evidence and Mary’s remarks were not an unequivocal judicial admission; insufficient record to decide
Whether the county court had sufficient evidentiary record to decide trustee’s motion	Mary: The county court lacked admissible evidence—no sworn testimony or exhibits—and thus its findings are unsupported	Trustee: Argued facts were undisputed and counsel’s summaries/judicial notice of the record were adequate	Court held the record was insufficient (no admitted exhibits, no sworn testimony, improper/undefined judicial notice); reversed and remanded for a new hearing where evidence is properly presented

Key Cases Cited

Hargesheimer v. Gale, 294 Neb. 123 (discusses standard for meaningful appellate review and record requirements)
In re Robert L. McDowell Revocable Trust, 296 Neb. 565 (addresses appellate review of trust-administration matters)
Bergmeier v. Bergmeier, 296 Neb. 440 (review standard when equity questions exist in trust matters)
Hynes v. Good Samaritan Hosp., 285 Neb. 985 (court’s duty to create a record and consequences of deficient record)
In re Interest of N.M. and J.M., 240 Neb. 690 (limitations on judicial notice of the court’s own records when matters remain controverted)