In re Masek Family Trust, 15 N.W.3d 379

Charles and Patricia Masek created the Masek Family Trust in 1993 for the benefit of themselves and, after their deaths, their five children.
Upon Charles' death in 2000, Patricia became sole trustee of the now-irrevocable trust, which allowed distributions for Patricia’s care and, after her death, for the children as beneficiaries.
Around 2014, Patricia was moved to Illinois by two of her children, Mark and Dianne, due to concerns about her cognitive decline, leading to disputes over management of the trust and access to Patricia.
In 2020, Barry (another sibling) initiated legal proceedings alleging Mark and Dianne misused and depleted trust assets for their own benefit and excluded the other siblings from records and contact.
A county court entered a substantial judgment against Mark and Dianne, finding them liable for breaching the trust; the Nebraska Supreme Court reversed and remanded for clarification of the legal theory and proper factual findings.
On remand, the trial court again found Mark and Dianne liable, but the Supreme Court now modified the judgment, holding only some expenditures were proven as breaches and clarified judgment was for the trust, not Barry personally.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Were Mark and Dianne liable as beneficiaries for participating or inducing breach of trust?	Mark and Dianne participated in or induced numerous breaches while Patricia was incapacitated.	Their actions were permissible, for Patricia’s care, or approved by her; not enough evidence of breach.	Sufficient evidence supported liability for some, but not all, disputed expenditures.
Were the expenditures trust/fiduciary assets or Patricia’s personal funds?	The Chase and Edward Jones accounts were trust assets; misuse depleted the trust.	Expenditures were Patricia’s personal funds, so trust was not harmed.	Court found the funds in dispute were trust assets, based on evidence and law of the case.
Did the mandate on remand restrict the trial court from reassessing the amounts or just the basis for liability?	The amount of judgment should not have been revisited, only the theory of liability.	The court could and should reassess the amounts based on the new theory.	Court allowed trial court to reconsider the judgment amount and examine each expenditure.
Was the award of attorney fees on remand proper?	Attorney fees (including additional fees) were a proper statutory remedy.	Additional fees exceeded mandate and were unreasonable or not tied to this proceeding.	Additional attorney fees were authorized and not an abuse of discretion.

In re Masek Family Trust, 312 Neb. 94 (appellate court remand required clarity on legal theory for trust liability)
Darling Ingredients v. City of Bellevue, 313 Neb. 853 (scope and duty of trial court on remand)
In re Estate of Walker, 315 Neb. 510 (competent evidence and fact-finder discretion)
Boone River, LLC v. Miles, 314 Neb. 889 (claim and issue preclusion standards)
Tierney v. Tierney, 309 Neb. 310 (law-of-the-case doctrine)