Mock v. Neumeister, 296 Neb. 376

Background

In June 2011 Carl Landgraf (age ~87) executed joint-tenancy deeds conveying ~1,000 acres to Gail and Marlene Neumeister; deeds recited $4 consideration and were accompanied by a revocable trust and powers of attorney naming Gail as agent.
After Landgraf’s death, Clarence Mock (special administrator) sued to set aside the inter vivos deeds as procured by undue influence; the Neumeisters counterclaimed for improvements made post-transfer.
Trial lasted 8 days with 33 live witnesses and 200+ exhibits; the district court found a confidential relationship existed but concluded Mock failed to prove undue influence by clear and convincing evidence and denied relief; the court taxed certain costs but declined to tax deposition costs.
Key factual contentions: Mock emphasized Landgraf’s cognitive impairment, dependency on Gail, numerous contacts and Gail’s dominant role; the Neumeisters and several witnesses testified Landgraf wanted to give land to his farmers, Werts (attorney who prepared the 2011 instruments) saw no sign of coercion, and some witnesses described Landgraf as capable of making decisions.
The district court weighed conflicting evidence and credited portions of the Neumeisters’ evidence; on appeal the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the equity claim de novo but gave weight to the trial court’s credibility determinations.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mock)	Defendant's Argument (Neumeister)	Held
Whether the 2011 deeds/related instruments were procured by undue influence	Gail controlled and influenced Landgraf; confidential relationship + suspicious circumstances justify inference of undue influence; deeds should be set aside	Landgraf intended to give his land to the farmers who cared for him; evidence does not show unlawful control or that deeds were not voluntary	Court affirmed: Mock failed to prove undue influence by clear and convincing evidence
Effect of "confidential relationship" / burden shifting	Evidence of confidential relationship + suspicious circumstances triggers inference and shifts burden to defendants to rebut	Even if inference arises, defendants produced credible evidence (attorney involvement, Landgraf’s expressed wishes) rebutting influence	Court treated burden of persuasion as remaining on Mock; found record not firm enough to overturn trial court credibility findings
Standard of proof for inter vivos conveyance claims	(argued) clarify whether lesser standard applies compared to will contests	Defendants defended application of equity standard (clear and convincing)	Court applied settled equity standard: clear and convincing proof required and Mock did not meet it
Taxation of deposition costs under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1711	Request to tax deposition costs to Mock	Court has discretion in equitable actions; decline was proper	Court found no abuse of 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 inference v. presumption language in undue-influence context)
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 (party alleging undue influence in equity bears clear-and-convincing burden)
Caruso v. Parkos, 262 Neb. 961, 637 N.W.2d 351 (undue influence voids conveyance when it controls grantor’s will)
Martensen v. Rejda Bros., 283 Neb. 279, 808 N.W.2d 855 (standard of review for taxation of costs—abuse of discretion)
Peterson v. Peterson, 230 Neb. 479, 432 N.W.2d 231 (equitable undue-influence actions reviewed de novo)