In re Estate of Radford, 297 Neb. 748

Background

Provident Trust Company (trustee) filed for direction whether a $200,000 inter vivos gift from Sheila Radford to her daughter Mary should be treated as an advancement (ademption by satisfaction) of Mary’s remainder interest in the Sheila Foxley Radford Trust after Sheila later restated her trust and will.
Mary signed a handwritten note in 2007 acknowledging receipt of $200,000 “for purchase of a home” and recognizing it as an inheritance; Sheila wired the funds the same year. Sheila restated her trust in 2010 without referencing the gift; she died in 2014.
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 said facts were not in dispute but did not expressly stipulate to counsel’s factual summary.
The county court applied Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2350 and ruled the 2007 gift (with Mary’s contemporaneous note) was an advancement, reducing Mary’s trust share so that she received nothing.
On appeal the Nebraska Supreme Court held the county court’s judgment lacked an adequate evidentiary record (no sworn testimony, no admitted exhibits, and no proper judicial notice of documents), reversed, and remanded for a new hearing so the trustee can meet its burden of proof.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mary)	Defendant's Argument (Trustee)	Held
Whether § 30-2350 and ademption by satisfaction apply to the trust distribution	§ 30-2350 should not be applied to change trust distributions; Trust language controls intent	§ 30-2350 permits treating a contemporaneous writing acknowledging a gift as an advancement reducing trust share	Court did not decide merits—remanded because record lacked admissible evidence to support the application of § 30-2350
Whether the 2007 gift was an advancement/adeemed Mary’s trust share	Gift was separate and trust restatement omission shows intent to leave Mary a one-sixth share	Mary’s 2007 written acknowledgement and the wire transfer show it was an advancement under § 30-2350	Not decided on the merits; insufficient evidentiary record to uphold county court ruling
Whether the county court could rely on counsel’s statements and unmarked pleadings	Counsel’s summaries and pleadings are not proof; Mary did not unequivocally stipulate	Counsel urged the court to take judicial notice of the record and summarized facts	Court held counsel’s statements and the unadmitted pleadings were inadequate substitutes for evidence
Whether the county court properly took judicial notice of its records	Court should not judicially notice controverted facts absent marking and making documents part of the record	Trustee asked for judicial notice of the record to support factual findings	Court erred in failing to identify and admit the specific documents; remand required for proper evidentiary hearing

Key Cases Cited

Hargesheimer v. Gale, 294 Neb. 123 (discusses requirements for meaningful appellate record and statutory interpretation)
In re Robert L. McDowell Revocable Trust, 296 Neb. 565 (trust administration review standards)
Hynes v. Good Samaritan Hosp., 285 Neb. 985 (trial record and appellate review requirements)
In re Interest of N.M. and J.M., 240 Neb. 690 (limits on judicial notice of court records when facts remain controverted)
Wolgamott v. Abramson, 253 Neb. 350 (need to mark and make judicially noticed papers part of the record to allow appellate review)