Mock v. Neumeister, 296 Neb. 376

In June 2011 Carl Landgraf (elderly, no close family) executed deeds transferring ~1,000 acres to Gail and Marlene Neumeister, plus a revocable trust and POAs naming Gail; total recited consideration $4.
Special administrator Clarence Mock sued after Landgraf’s death alleging the inter vivos transfers were procured by undue influence; Neumeisters counterclaimed for improvements.
Trial produced extensive conflicting evidence about Landgraf’s cognitive capacity, his long close relationship and dependence on Gail, prior estate plans favoring charities, and contemporaneous estate-planning meetings with attorneys Werts and others.
District court found a confidential relationship existed but concluded Mock did not prove undue influence by clear and convincing evidence and denied setting aside the deeds; it taxed some costs but refused deposition costs.
On appeal (bypass to Nebraska Supreme Court) the core question was whether Mock met the clear-and-convincing burden to set aside the deeds as the product of undue influence; court reviewed de novo but defers to trial court credibility findings where appropriate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mock)	Defendant's Argument (Neumeister)	Held
Whether deeds were procured by undue influence	Evidence of confidential/fiduciary relationship + suspicious circumstances justified inference of undue influence; deeds should be set aside	Transfers reflected Landgraf’s expressed intent to give land to his farmers; independent attorney involvement and other evidence rebut undue influence	Court affirmed: Mock failed to prove undue influence by clear and convincing evidence
Burden/presumption framework	The court should apply burden-shifting/inference (as discussed in prior cases) to inter vivos conveyances	The court properly applied the equitable clear-and-convincing standard and need not adopt a different presumption rule for inter vivos deeds	Court declined to alter the standard; focused on ultimate burden of persuasion on Mock
Neumeisters’ counterclaim for improvements	Mock sought dismissal for lack of evidence if deeds set aside	Neumeisters argued for compensation if deeds were set aside	Moot because court affirmed on undue influence; no reversal needed
Taxation of original deposition costs	Mock (as losing party) should bear deposition costs	Neumeisters asked the court to tax deposition costs as part of judgment	Court exercised discretion under §25-1711 and did not abuse discretion in refusing to tax deposition costs to Mock

In re Estate of Clinger, 292 Neb. 237, 872 N.W.2d 37 (discusses use of "inference" vs "presumption" of undue influence and jury instruction concerns)
In re Estate of Hedke, 278 Neb. 727, 775 N.W.2d 13 (explains undue influence is difficult to prove and often rests on inferences from surrounding circumstances)
Goff v. Weeks, 246 Neb. 163, 517 N.W.2d 387 (equitable undue influence framework)
Martensen v. Rejda Bros., 283 Neb. 279, 808 N.W.2d 855 (standard of review for equitable actions and burden allocation)