Mock v. Neumeister
296 Neb. 376
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Carl Landgraf, an elderly farmer with diminished capacities, executed deeds on June 11, 2011, transferring ~1,000 acres to Gail and Marlene Neumeister (recited consideration $4) and signed a revocable trust and powers of attorney naming Gail as agent.
- After Landgraf’s death, Clarence Mock, special administrator of the estate, sued to set aside the inter vivos conveyances for undue influence; the Neumeisters counterclaimed for improvements (later rendered moot if conveyances stand). 8-day bench trial with 33 witnesses and 200+ exhibits.
- Evidence showed a long, close relationship: Gail helped farm and care for Landgraf for years, had significant contact, and had previously been involved in Landgraf’s estate discussions. Some witnesses described Landgraf as dependent or anxious about Gail; others testified Landgraf acted voluntarily and expressed intent to give land to his farmers.
- Attorneys (Hoch, Horan, Werts) met with Landgraf at different times; Werts prepared the 2011 deeds and trust after Landgraf gave instructions including gifting/selling large tracts to the Neumeisters. Werts saw no sign of undue influence at signing.
- Expert (for contestant) opined Landgraf had mild-to-moderate executive dysfunction making him susceptible to undue influence; other lay witnesses testified to his capacity and intent. Trial court found a confidential relationship but concluded Mock failed to prove undue influence by clear and convincing evidence and denied taxation of deposition costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mock) | Defendant's Argument (Neumeister) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether deeds should be set aside for undue influence | The close/confidential relationship plus suspicious circumstances justify an inference of undue influence; Neumeisters failed to rebut | Transfers reflected Landgraf’s expressed intent to give his land to his farmers; signatures and attorney involvement show voluntariness | Deeds not set aside — Mock failed to prove undue influence by clear and convincing evidence |
| Burden-shifting/presumption application | Court should apply inference/presumption framework (as discussed in Hedke/Clinger) to inter vivos conveyances | Existing precedent does not change the ultimate burden of persuasion in equity; burden remains on contestant | Court applied correct equitable standard; burden of persuasion remained on Mock; no error assigned so not reconsidered on appeal |
| Credibility of witnesses and role of attorney testimony | Gail was not credible; his role influenced Landgraf’s decisions | Attorneys (Werts, Horan, Hoch) and other witnesses corroborated Landgraf’s intent and competence at meetings | On de novo review, appellate court gave weight to trial court’s credibility findings and accepted trial court’s resolution of conflicting evidence |
| Taxation of deposition costs under equitable-cost statute | Deposition costs should be taxed to Mock as prevailing party costs | §25-1711 gives trial court discretion in equitable actions; taxing depositions is not mandatory | Trial court did not abuse discretion in denying taxation of deposition costs to Mock |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of Clinger, 292 Neb. 237 (discussing that a "presumption of undue influence" is not a true presumption and describing inference/burden concepts)
- In re Estate of Hedke, 278 Neb. 727 (noting undue influence is often proven by inference from surrounding circumstances)
- Goff v. Weeks, 246 Neb. 163 (state rule that contestant in equity must prove undue influence by clear and convincing evidence)
- Martensen v. Rejda Bros., 283 Neb. 279 (standard that burden of proof in equitable undue-influence actions is clear and convincing evidence)