Mock v. Neumeister
296 Neb. 376
| Neb. | 2017Background
- In June 2011 Carl Landgraf (age ~87) signed joint‑tenancy deeds conveying ~1,000 acres to Gail and Marlene Neumeister, later corrected by additional deeds; recited consideration totaled $4.
- After Landgraf’s death, Clarence Mock (special administrator) sued to set aside the inter vivos transfers for undue influence; Neumeisters counterclaimed for improvements (later deemed moot by the trial court).
- Trial lasted 8 days with 33 live witnesses and 200+ exhibits; disputed factual issues included Landgraf’s mental capacity, the nature of his relationship with Gail, and whether the transfers reflected Landgraf’s voluntary intent.
- Evidence for undue influence: long-term dependency on Gail, frequent contact, alleged cognitive impairment (expert Dr. Blum), episodes of fear/nervousness around Gail, and expedited estate planning with Gail present.
- Evidence against undue influence: prior estate planning showing intent to benefit farmers/charities, multiple attorneys involved (Werts prepared deeds; Hoch previously represented Landgraf), many witnesses testifying that Landgraf understood decisions and wanted his land to go to his farmers, and Werts’s and others’ impressions that transactions reflected Landgraf’s wishes.
- The district court found a confidential relationship but ruled Mock failed to prove undue influence by clear and convincing evidence and declined to tax deposition costs to Mock; the Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Mock's Argument | Neumeisters' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the deeds were procured by undue influence | Landgraf was susceptible, Gail had opportunity/disposition, and transfers resulted from undue influence (inferable from confidential relationship + suspicious circumstances) | Transfers reflected Landgraf’s independent wish to give land to his farmers; lawyers and witnesses corroborate voluntariness | Court affirmed: Mock failed to prove undue influence by clear and convincing evidence |
| Applicability/weight of inference/presumption doctrine | Court should apply burden‑shifting where confidential relationship + suspicious circumstances justify an inference of undue influence | The court should not treat the matter as a presumption that lessens plaintiff’s burden; ultimate burden remains on contestant | Court applied existing law: recognized inference language but reiterated that burden of persuasion remains with contestant; declined to alter standards |
| Sufficiency of evidence to shift burden to defendants (i.e., rebut inference) | Once inference arises, defendants must rebut; Neumeisters allegedly failed to rebut | Neumeisters produced evidence (attorney testimony, writings, conduct) showing independent intent and voluntariness | Court viewed whole record and found Neumeisters’ evidence adequate; Mock still bore persuasion burden and failed to meet it |
| Taxation of deposition costs | Mock (as prevailing party) should not be taxed for deposition costs; or court must follow equitable discretion | Neumeisters sought $3,025.59 including original deposition costs | Court did not abuse discretion in declining to tax deposition costs to Mock under Neb. Rev. Stat. §25‑1711; affirmed trial court discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of Clinger, 292 Neb. 237 (Neb. 2015) (discusses language of "inference" vs "presumption" of undue influence and jury instruction concerns)
- In re Estate of Hedke, 278 Neb. 727 (Neb. 2009) (observes undue influence is often proved by inference from surrounding facts and relationships)
- Rule v. Roth, 199 Neb. 746 (Neb. 1978) (defines undue influence as unlawful control over grantor's will)
- Goff v. Weeks, 246 Neb. 163 (Neb. 1994) (confirms equitable review standard for undue influence claims)
- Martensen v. Rejda Bros., 283 Neb. 279 (Neb. 2012) (addresses standard of review for trial court rulings in equity)