In re Estate of Radford
933 N.W.2d 595
Neb.2019Background
- Sheila Radford executed a pour-over will and trust; the will devised assets to the trust, and the trust distributed the residuary among four children (after a 2010 amendment: Mary, William, Christopher each 1/6; Brigid 1/2).
- In May 2007 Sheila wired $200,000 to Mary for a home; Mary signed a handwritten note stating Sheila was "affording me $200,000 . . . recognized by me as inheritance."
- Sheila amended her trust in April 2010; neither the amendment nor her updated will mentioned the $200,000 transfer.
- The trustee filed an application for direction after Sheila’s death asking whether the 2007 payment should be treated as an advancement/ademption against Mary’s trust share; the county court applied Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2350 and credited the $200,000 against Mary’s residuary share.
- This Court previously reversed and remanded for further hearing; on remand the county court again applied § 30-2350. Mary appealed, arguing the statute does not apply to trust beneficiaries and that the note did not effect an ademption.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed: it held § 30-2350 governs ademptions of devises under wills and does not apply to beneficiaries of a devise-to-trust; under § 30-2209(8) the trust, not the beneficiaries, is the devisee, so the $200,000 could not be a § 30-2350 ademption. The case was remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mary) | Defendant's Argument (Appellees/Trust) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2350 (ademption by satisfaction) applies to trust beneficiaries | § 30-2350 should apply to trusts/beneficiaries so the 2007 gift can be treated as satisfaction of Mary’s trust share | § 30-2350 applies only to devisees under a will; the trust (not beneficiaries) is the devisee | Held: § 30-2350 applies only to devisees; trust is the devisee under § 30-2209(8), so statute does not apply to Mary |
| Whether Sheila intended the $200,000 to be an ademption of Mary’s interest | The note and circumstances show intent that the payment be treated as inheritance/advance | The payment should be treated as a satisfaction only if statute governs or clear intent exists | Held: Court did not reach a binding finding of intent under § 30-2350 because statute inapplicable to trust beneficiaries |
| Whether an ademption could be effectuated before the trust was amended | Mary: ademption cannot be applied retroactively to a later trust amendment | Appellees: a prior satisfaction can be applied against later testamentary dispositions | Held: Not decided substantively because § 30-2350 inapplicable; ademption by satisfaction under that statute cannot be applied to trust beneficiaries |
| Whether Mary’s May 30, 2007 handwritten note satisfied § 30-2350’s contemporaneous writing requirement | Mary: the note was not intended to be a deduction from a devise and thus does not meet statutory requirement | Appellees: the note is an acknowledgement contemporaneous with the gift and meets § 30-2350 | Held: Court concluded § 30-2350 cannot be used here (so the note’s sufficiency under that statute is irrelevant to outcome) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of Etmund, 297 Neb. 455, 900 N.W.2d 536 (2017) (discusses ademption by satisfaction under § 30-2350)
- Hargesheimer v. Gale, 294 Neb. 123, 881 N.W.2d 589 (2016) (principles of statutory interpretation)
- JB & Assocs. v. Nebraska Cancer Coalition, 303 Neb. 855, 932 N.W.2d 71 (2019) (legislative intent can be shown by omission)
- Christine W. v. Trevor W., 303 Neb. 245, 928 N.W.2d 398 (2019) (statutory construction and legislative intent)
- In re Estate of McFayden, 235 Neb. 214, 454 N.W.2d 676 (1990) (prior Nebraska ademption/advancement authority)
- Lodge v. Fitch, 72 Neb. 652, 101 N.W. 338 (1904) (early Nebraska authority on advancement/ademption)
- Boden v. Mier, 71 Neb. 191, 98 N.W. 701 (1904) (early Nebraska authority on advancement/ademption)