Malousek v. Meyer
309 Neb. 803
| Neb. | 2021Background
- Molly Stacey (terminal cancer) married Steven Greg Meyer on October 14, 2017, and between October 12–20, 2017 executed multiple transfers: added Greg as joint owner on bank accounts, changed beneficiaries on insurance/retirement/mutual funds, signed quitclaim deeds to make homes joint with right of survivorship, and replaced her power of attorney with Greg; she died intestate on October 23, 2017.
- Molly’s adult children (A.J. and Courtney) filed a declaratory judgment action alleging undue influence and lack of mental capacity; a special administrator of Molly’s estate later joined as a plaintiff.
- The district court credited plaintiffs’ witnesses, found Molly lacked capacity and was subject to undue influence, declared the marriage void, and ordered reconveyance of property transfers to the estate/children, but declined to impose a resulting trust as to a boat titled in Mark Meyer’s name.
- Greg and Mark appealed, arguing lack of standing, incorrect burden/standard, and erroneous findings on capacity and undue influence.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court on standing, capacity, and undue influence, but reversed as to the boat, holding a resulting trust existed and remanding for entry of an appropriate order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge estate-related transfers | Children (with special administrator later joined) were proper parties; where nonprobate transfers affect children directly they may sue, and special administrator joined before final judgment | Initial suit by children lacked standing to recover estate assets; only the (special) administrator can pursue estate claims (In re Hedke) | Joinder of special administrator cured any initial defect; court had jurisdiction and plaintiffs had standing once special administrator joined |
| Whether transactions (accounts, deeds, beneficiary changes) were procured by undue influence | Plaintiffs: Greg orchestrated secret transactions while Molly was debilitated and isolated; circumstantial evidence supports undue influence | Defendants: Molly initiated and led transactions; witnesses showed she was coherent and acted freely | Court (de novo review weight given to trial court credibility findings): clear and convincing evidence of undue influence; transactions voided |
| Whether Molly had requisite mental capacity to marry and execute instruments | Plaintiffs: Molly suffered delirium and cognitive impairment from illness/medication in October 2017 and could not comprehend/consent | Defendants: Medical records and witnesses show Molly was oriented and competent until very late; no evidence she lacked capacity when signing | Court: clear and convincing evidence Molly lacked capacity when transactions occurred and when she married; marriage and transfers invalidated |
| Whether boat titled in Mark’s name is a resulting trust or gift | Special administrator: Molly paid purchase price and titled boat in Mark’s name for her own convenience/tax/operational reasons — resulting trust arises | Mark: close familial relationship supports presumption of gift; he treated boat as his | Court: reversed district court — resulting trust proven (Molly paid purchase price, did not treat as completed gift); presumption of gift rebutted; remand to enter order consistent with resulting trust |
Key Cases Cited
- Valley Boys v. American Family Ins. Co., 306 Neb. 928 (standing/jurisdictional principles)
- In re Estate of Hedke, 278 Neb. 727 (probate code: personal representative/special administrator has right/duty to sue for estate assets)
- Cotton v. Ostroski, 250 Neb. 911 (bench-trial findings in law actions reviewed for clear error)
- Mock v. Neumeister, 296 Neb. 376 (equitable review de novo and weight given to trial court credibility)
- Miller v. Westwood, 238 Neb. 896 (elements for undue influence and related principles)
- Goff v. Weeks, 246 Neb. 163 (standing to challenge beneficiary changes/nonprobate transfers)
- Wait v. Cornette, 259 Neb. 850 (doctrine of resulting trusts)
- Brtek v. Cihal, 245 Neb. 756 (presumption of gift among close parties and rebuttal factors)