In re Estate of Severson, 310 Neb. 982

Ryan Severson died in March 2017; no prior probate or personal representative had been appointed.
In March 2021, creditor Don Feik filed an informal-appointment application nominating Severson’s mother, Diane Kelly (now Schubert), as personal representative so she could be served as a defendant in a pending Kearney County auto-tort case.
Kelly objected, refused to accept the appointment, and argued the appointment proceeding was time-barred under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2408 (more than 3 years after death).
The Franklin County probate court appointed Kelly, waived publication/inventory/bond, and issued letters of personal representative despite no filed acceptance or qualification.
Kelly appealed; the Nebraska Supreme Court considered only the probate appointment and issuance of letters (not the Kearney County civil case) and reversed issuance of letters because statutory qualification/acceptance had not occurred; it remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Feik)	Defendant's Argument (Kelly)	Held
Whether the probate appointment order was a final, appealable order	The appointment (and issuance of letters) ended a discrete phase and imposed duties, so it is final	Order is not final / court lacked jurisdiction because of time bar	Order was final (special proceeding; affected substantial right)
Whether letters could be issued without the appointee's acceptance and qualification	Court may appoint and issue letters to enable service in tort case	One who refuses cannot be compelled; letters require prior qualification and written acceptance	Letters were improperly issued; issuance reversed because statutes require qualification/acceptance before letters
Whether § 30-2408 barred commencing an appointment proceeding more than 3 years after death	§ 30-2408 allows tardy informal appointment if no probate proceeding occurred within 3 years; proceeding may be commenced	Section 30-2408 bars tardy appointment and court lacks jurisdiction	Exception in § 30-2408(4) applies; proceeding could be commenced, but claims (other than expenses of administration) are limited
Scope of probate court’s reasoning re: Kearney County civil case	The probate court’s order needed to address interplay with the civil case to avoid absurd results	Probate court lacked authority to render advisory opinions about the civil case	Court reversed any portions that opined on matters outside the appointment proceeding; advisory questions left open

In re Estate of Beltran, 964 N.W.2d 714 (Neb. 2021) (final-order analysis in probate special proceedings)
In re Estate of Larson, 953 N.W.2d 535 (Neb. 2021) (substantial-right standard; discrete-phase finality)
In re Guardianship of Nicholas H., 958 N.W.2d 661 (Neb. 2021) (acceptance required before issuance of letters in guardianship context)
Matter of Estate of Cluff, 587 P.2d 128 (Utah 1978) (a court cannot compel an unwilling person to serve as administrator)
In re Estate of Nemetz, 735 N.W.2d 363 (Neb. 2007) (statutory interpretation; § 30-2408 permit for tardy proceedings)
In re Estate of Radford, 901 N.W.2d 261 (Neb. 2017) (rule on bill of exceptions and appellate evidence)
Ader v. Estate of Felger, 375 P.3d 97 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016) (interpretation that tardy-appointment clause limits recoverable claims)
State ex rel. Peterson v. Ebke, 930 N.W.2d 551 (Neb. 2019) (court should not render advisory opinions)