In re Trust Created by Haberman, 886 N.W.2d 829

Phyllis L. Haberman established a revocable trust in 1996 naming her four children (George, Phillip, Rex, Mary Lou) as beneficiaries; trust corpus consisted mainly of family real estate interests held in R and P Limited Partnership later transferred to Roses and Wheat, L.L.C.
On February 17, 2006, the siblings and related entities signed an "Agreement Among Parties" (signed also by Mary Lou as Phyllis’s guardian/conservator) proposing an equal 25% split of Roses and Wheat among the four children on Phyllis’s death.
Phyllis executed a third amendment in October 2006 and, after family disputes (notably involving George), executed a fourth amendment in May 2010 that expressly omitted George and directed distribution of her Roses and Wheat interest equally to Phillip, Rex, and Mary Lou.
Phyllis died in May 2011; Phillip, Rex, and Mary Lou petitioned for instructions; George claimed the 2006 Agreement controlled and sought a 25% interest.
The county court found Phyllis had capacity when she made the fourth amendment, invalidated the Agreement Among Parties (because it was not personally signed by Phyllis), and held the fourth amendment controlled; George appealed.
On appeal the Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed: the settlor’s valid revocation/amendment of a revocable trust controls, so the 2010 amendment terminating George’s beneficiary interest revoked any prior agreement-based expectancy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Enforceability of the 2006 "Agreement Among Parties" as a standalone contract	George: the Agreement is an enforceable contract that allocated 25% of Roses and Wheat to him	Others: Agreement was not effective to bind trust distribution—Phyllis never personally signed; beneficiaries had only expectancies while trust was revocable	Held: Agreement did not control; beneficiaries were contingent expectancies and any prior agreement was superseded by later valid trust amendment
Whether the 2010 fourth amendment or the 2006 Agreement governs post-mortem distribution	George: the 2006 Agreement governs distribution despite later amendment	Others: Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-3855(a) the settlor’s continued control of a revocable trust allows amendment/revocation; Phyllis validly amended the trust in 2010 to omit George	Held: The 2010 fourth amendment validly removed George; it governs distribution and nullified any earlier property interest George claimed
Invocation of equitable defenses (public policy / unclean hands)	George: not applicable to bar his claim	Others: Trial court relied in part on unclean hands and public policy regarding enforcing the Agreement	Held: Court of Appeals need not decide unclean hands; outcome affirmed on the ground that the valid fourth amendment terminated George’s interest

In re Margaret Mastny Revocable Trust, 281 Neb. 188 (2011) (standard of appellate review for trust administration and equity issues)
Manon v. Orr, 289 Neb. 484 (2014) (beneficiaries of a revocable trust have mere expectancies while trust is revocable)
Sgambelluri v. Nelson, 480 F.2d 619 (9th Cir. 1973) (assignment of expectancy fails where later amendment or failure to inherit extinguishes the claimed interest)
In re Estate of Lamplaugh, 270 Neb. 941 (2006) (appellate court may affirm on different grounds than trial court if record supports the result)
In re Interest of Hansen, 281 Neb. 693 (2011) (appellate courts need not decide unnecessary issues)