In re Guardianship & Conservatorship of Barnhart, 859 N.W.2d 856

Donald Barnhart was declared incapacitated and placed in a health center; his wife Alice and stepdaughter Sherry Heady petitioned to be coguardians and coconservators.
Barnhart executed a 2000 will leaving his residuary estate to four charitable organizations (the objectors); in 2012 he executed a new estate plan naming Alice and Heady as beneficiaries.
The objectors (the four charities and lodges) filed an objection to the guardianship/conservatorship, alleging the estate was being depleted and asserting standing as persons "interested in [Barnhart’s] welfare."
The county court reviewed estate documents in camera, held a hearing focused on standing, and ruled the objectors lacked standing because their interest was purely financial (a potential testamentary expectancy).
The objectors sought clarification and argued the court made evidentiary findings without an evidentiary hearing; the county court clarified its order was limited to standing.
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed: beneficiaries under a will who have only a contingent testamentary expectancy lack standing to contest guardianship or conservatorship; no formal evidentiary hearing was required under the circumstances.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a potential testamentary beneficiary has standing as "any person interested in [the ward’s] welfare" to challenge guardianship/conservatorship	Objectors: their beneficiary status and concern about estate depletion gives them standing to protect Barnhart’s welfare	Alice/Heady & court: objectors’ interest is purely financial and contingent; standing requires genuine attentiveness to the ward’s personal welfare	Held: No. A mere contingent beneficial interest in a will is insufficient; standing requires demonstrable concern/attentiveness to the ward’s welfare
Whether a court may make a standing determination without a formal evidentiary hearing	Objectors: the court made factual/evidentiary findings without affording an evidentiary hearing, violating due process	Alice/Heady & court: parties had notice and opportunity to present evidence; the court’s review on standing based on briefs/hearing (and in‑camera review) was sufficient	Held: No formal evidentiary hearing was required here; due process satisfied because parties had meaningful opportunity to be heard

In re Guardianship of Gilmore, 11 Neb. App. 876, 662 N.W.2d 221 (Neb. Ct. App. 2003) (broad view of who may be "interested" and upholding standing where petitioner showed attentiveness to ward's welfare)
In re Guardianship & Conservatorship of Borowiak, 10 Neb. App. 22, 624 N.W.2d 72 (Neb. Ct. App. 2001) (distinguishes vested testamentary interests after testator's death from contingent expectancies during life)
Hass v. Neth, 265 Neb. 321, 657 N.W.2d 11 (Neb. 2003) (articulates due process standard that opportunity to be heard must be meaningful; formal evidentiary hearing not always required)