861 N.W.2d 682
Neb.2015Background
- Edward J. Stuchlik Jr. died leaving a trust and two residences: the “home place” and another residence he shared with Margaret.
- Margaret, the surviving joint tenant of the shared residence, conveyed her interest in that residence to Edward, Voboril, and Kenneth as tenants in common, subject to a life estate for Margaret.
- In January 2013, Margaret, Kenneth, and Edward entered the home place with a sheriff’s deputy (civil standby), changed the locks, and indicated intent to demolish the residence; John (appellant) alleged conversion of his personal property.
- John sought removal of Margaret and Kenneth as cotrustees based on alleged contract for wills or an oral trust and related discovery disputes.
- The county court found any contract for wills or oral trust evidence irrelevant to the removal action and found no evidence of an oral trust; it resolved evidentiary conflicts in favor of the successful party.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court modified portions of its prior opinion but affirmed the county court’s approach, overruling rehearing motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a contract for wills or oral trust supports removal of cotrustees | John: there was a contract for wills between Margaret and Stuchlik to divide the trust equally among three sons | Margaret: contract for wills or oral trust is irrelevant to a cotrustee removal action; county court saw no evidence of oral trust | Court: Contract for wills is irrelevant to this removal action; no evidence of oral trust; county court did not err |
| Whether discovery and in-camera review regarding alleged wills/ trust evidence were required | John: discovery and in-camera review were necessary to probe existence of contract/oral trust | Margaret: such matters irrelevant; county court properly limited discovery and privileged material | Court: Because contract/oral trust would be irrelevant, denial of additional discovery and privilege rulings were not error |
| Whether county court erred in evidentiary findings and weighing conflicting evidence | John: court misweighed evidence and should have found contract/oral trust | Margaret: court’s factual findings should be given deference | Court: Affirmed—appellate review gives weight to trial court findings; no reweighing; conflicts resolved for successful party |
| Whether probate action is the proper remedy for breach of contract for wills | John: probate action appropriate to enforce alleged agreement | Margaret: breach of contract for wills suit is a contract action or action against breaching party’s estate, not a probate removal proceeding | Court: Agreed—breach of contract for wills is not a probate removal action but a separate contract/action against estate |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of Stuchlik, 289 Neb. 673 (2014) (prior Nebraska Supreme Court opinion addressing the estate/trust issues in this litigation)