Mock v. Neumeister
296 Neb. 376
| Neb. | 2017Background
- In June 2011 Carl Landgraf (age ~87) executed joint-tenancy deeds conveying ~1,000 acres to Gail and Marlene Neumeister, and executed a revocable living trust and powers of attorney naming Gail. Consideration recited across deeds was nominal ($4).
- After Landgraf’s death, Clarence Mock (special administrator) sued to set aside the inter vivos deeds alleging undue influence; the Neumeisters counterclaimed for improvements.
- Trial lasted 8 days with 33 live witnesses and 200+ exhibits; evidence included prior estate plans (1999 will and charitable trust), multiple attorney consultations (Hoch, Horan, Werts), and testimony about Landgraf’s dependence on Gail.
- Medical/third-party materials showed concerns about Landgraf’s cognition and vulnerability (adult-protective-service intakes, expert opinion of impaired executive function), while several witnesses testified Landgraf expressed a desire to give land to his farmers and that he made decisions coherently at times.
- The district court found a confidential relationship existed but concluded Mock failed to prove undue influence by clear and convincing evidence and declined to tax deposition costs to Mock.
- On appeal the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed de novo (equitable action) and affirmed: Mock did not meet the clear-and-convincing burden, and the court did not abuse discretion on costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mock) | Defendant's Argument (Neumeister) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether deeds were procured by undue influence | Landgraf was susceptible, Gail had opportunity and disposition, and circumstances justify inference that deeds were the product of undue influence | Conveyances reflected Landgraf’s long-standing intent to give land to his farmers; transactions were voluntary and supported by attorney involvement | Court affirmed: plaintiff failed to prove undue influence by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether confidential/fiduciary relationship plus suspicious circumstances created a presumption shifting burden | Mock argued such evidence justifies an inference/presumption requiring rebuttal by defendants | Neumeisters argued Clinger eliminated any true presumption; only inference remains and ultimate burden stays with contestant | Court declined to change ultimate burden: inference may arise but burden of persuasion remains on contestant; result same on facts |
| Whether the Neumeisters rebutted any inference of undue influence | Mock contended defendants failed to rebut the inference | Neumeisters pointed to independent attorney Werts, documentation of Landgraf’s expressed wishes, and evidence of voluntariness | Held: evidence, including attorney involvement and Landgraf’s expressed intent, undermined plaintiff’s claim; not proven clearly and convincingly |
| Whether deposition costs should be taxed to plaintiff | Neumeisters sought original deposition costs taxed as part of judgment | Mock opposed; court has discretion under equitable costs statute | Held: trial court did not abuse discretion in declining to tax deposition costs to Mock |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of Clinger, 292 Neb. 237, 872 N.W.2d 37 (discussing use of "inference" vs "presumption" of undue influence)
- In re Estate of Hedke, 278 Neb. 727, 775 N.W.2d 13 (undue influence often proved by inference from circumstances)
- Goff v. Weeks, 246 Neb. 163, 517 N.W.2d 387 (equitable undue-influence actions require clear and convincing proof)
- Martensen v. Rejda Bros., 283 Neb. 279, 808 N.W.2d 855 (elements required to vitiate a property transfer for undue influence)
- City of Falls City v. Nebraska Mun. Power Pool, 281 Neb. 230, 795 N.W.2d 256 (equitable actions: §25-1711 grants court discretion to tax and apportion costs)