Manon v. Orr, 856 N.W.2d 106

Virginia M. Waechter settled the Virginia M. Waechter Revocable Trust; she was trustee until Nov. 11, 2012, when First National Bank of North Platte became trustee.
In late 2010, Virginia (as trustee) sold certain trust parcels to her daughter Peggy Orr and Peggy’s husband; other family members (plaintiffs) objected and alleged Virginia lacked capacity and that the sale suggested fraud.
Plaintiffs (Pamela Manon, Amy White, Brian and Jill Krzykowski, William Waechter) filed an action seeking imposition of a constructive trust on the property; Peggy and Jeff Orr moved to dismiss under Neb. Ct. R. Pldg. § 6-1112(b)(6).
The district court dismissed for lack of standing, reasoning that under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-3855(a) (revocable trusts), the settlor controls rights and duties are owed exclusively to the settlor, so beneficiaries have only an expectancy.
The district court also declined to recognize the tort of intentional interference with an inheritance or gift; plaintiffs appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to sue regarding trust property	Plaintiffs argued Virginia’s alleged incapacity made the trust effectively irrevocable or otherwise gave beneficiaries standing	Defendants argued § 30-3855(a) makes settlor the sole real party in interest for a revocable trust, so beneficiaries lack standing	Held: Plaintiffs lack standing; § 30-3855(a) leaves beneficiaries only an expectancy and alleged incapacity does not change revocable status
Whether settlor incapacity terminates settlor’s power to revoke	Plaintiffs: incapacity alters control and beneficiaries should be able to sue	Defendants: statutory text and legislative history retain settlor’s revocation power despite incapacity	Held: Incapacity does not terminate power to revoke; trust remains revocable until properly revoked or another acts for settlor
Recognition of tort: intentional interference with an inheritance or gift	Plaintiffs urged adoption of Restatement (Second) of Torts § 774B cause of action	Defendants argued § 30-3855(a) and existing law do not support adopting that tort here	Held: Court declined to decide interplay with § 30-3855(a) but expressly declined to adopt the tort in Nebraska
Whether First National Bank should remain a party	Plaintiffs included bank as trustee; defendants suggested dismissal of bank	Court did not reach the issue on cross-appeal grounds	Held: Court declined to address dismissal of bank because no cross-appeal was filed

Bruno v. Metropolitan Utilities Dist., 287 Neb. 551, 844 N.W.2d 50 (discusses standing and appellate review)
Countryside Co-op v. Harry A. Koch Co., 280 Neb. 795, 790 N.W.2d 873 (real-party-in-interest and pleading principles)
Caniglia v. Caniglia, 285 Neb. 930, 830 N.W.2d 207 (statutory interpretation principles)
Dafoe v. Dafoe, 160 Neb. 145, 69 N.W.2d 700 (mere expectancy insufficient to bring action)
In re Guardianship & Conservatorship of Garcia, 262 Neb. 205, 631 N.W.2d 464 (capacity and guardianship/conservatorship context)
Holdsworth v. Greenwood Farmers Co-op, 286 Neb. 49, 835 N.W.2d 30 (legislative enactments and public policy)