Nebraska Trust and Estate Dispute Litigation: Complete Research Brief

Nebraska trust and estate disputes are governed by a well-developed body of statutory and case law that gives litigants clear — but often complex — paths to challenge wills, trusts, and estate administration. The Nebraska Probate Code and the Nebraska Uniform Trust Code (adopted in 2003, effective January 1, 2005) together create the framework, while more than two decades of Nebraska Supreme Court and Court of Appeals decisions have refined the standards for undue influence, testamentary capacity, fiduciary duty, and trustee removal.

Nebraska Trust and Estate Dispute Litigation

Nebraska’s statutory framework for will and trust contests

Nebraska’s probate and trust statutes derive from the Uniform Probate Code and the Uniform Trust Code, giving the state a relatively modern, codified system. The key statutory provisions break down into three areas: will contests, trust disputes, and estate administration.

Will contest statutes center on Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 30-2408 and 30-2428 through 30-2437. Under § 30-2408, the outer time limit to commence a will contest is the later of 12 months from informal probate or three years from the decedent’s death. This statute of limitations is self-executing and begins running at death. The Nebraska Supreme Court confirmed this in In re Estate of Fuchs, 297 Neb. 667, 900 N.W.2d 896 (2017). Section § 30-2428 requires that objections to probate be in writing, and limits standing to persons with an immediate financial interest — heirs, beneficiaries under the contested will, and beneficiaries of prior or later wills.

A distinctive feature of Nebraska practice is the transfer mechanism under § 30-2429.01: once a written objection is filed, any party may request transfer of the will contest to district court, where trial is by jury unless all parties waive. The district court’s jurisdiction in a transferred contest is limited to determining the will’s validity; the county court retains jurisdiction over all other probate matters, including special administrator petitions. This was clarified in In re Estate of Anderson, 311 Neb. 758, 974 N.W.2d 847 (2022), and In re Estate of Koetter, 312 Neb. 549, 980 N.W.2d 376 (2022), which held that attorney fee determinations must be made by the county court, not the district court.

The burden of proof is allocated under § 30-2431: the will’s proponent must establish testamentary capacity by a preponderance of the evidence, while the contestant bears the burden of proving undue influence by a preponderance. Recognized grounds for contesting a will include lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence, fraud (in execution or inducement), duress, and improper execution under §§ 30-2327 and 30-2329.

Trust dispute statutes fall under the Nebraska Uniform Trust Code, Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 30-3801 to 30-38,115 (expanded by LB1074 in 2024). The statute of limitations for contesting a revocable trust under § 30-3856 is the earlier of one year after the settlor’s death or 120 days after the trustee sent notice (including a copy of the trust instrument, the trustee’s identity, and the time allowed for commencing proceedings). For breach of trust claims, § 30-3891 requires proceedings within one year after the beneficiary received a report adequately disclosing the facts, or within the general statute of limitations (typically four years for fiduciary breach).

The trust code’s mandatory provisions under § 30-3805 establish a floor that trust instruments cannot eliminate: the duty to act in good faith, the requirement of a lawful purpose, and the court’s power to modify or terminate trusts. Critically, a trust instrument cannot relieve a trustee of liability for breach committed in bad faith or with reckless indifference (§§ 30-3805 and 30-3897).

No-contest (in terrorem) clauses are addressed for wills in § 30-24,103, which provides that a penalty clause is unenforceable if probable cause exists for instituting proceedings. Nebraska follows the Uniform Probate Code approach here. While the UTC does not contain a standalone no-contest provision for trusts, Nebraska courts apply the probable cause exception by analogy, consistent with the general principle that equity disfavors forfeitures. The Nebraska Supreme Court confirmed the probable cause standard in In re Estate of Barger, 303 Neb. 817, 931 N.W.2d 660 (2019).

The four-element test for undue influence and how Nebraska courts apply it

Nebraska’s undue influence standard, established in Goff v. Weeks, 246 Neb. 163, 517 N.W.2d 387 (1994), requires the contestant to prove four elements by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) the testator was susceptible to undue influence; (2) there was opportunity to exercise such influence; (3) there was a disposition to exercise influence for an improper purpose; and (4) the result was clearly a product of such influence. This test remains controlling law, reaffirmed in In re Estate of Clinger, In re Estate of Koetter, and In re Estate of Walker.

The Nebraska Supreme Court in In re Estate of Clinger, 292 Neb. 237, 872 N.W.2d 37 (2015) delivered the seminal modern ruling on how the so-called “presumption” of undue influence actually operates. The court clarified that it is not a true evidentiary presumption but a “permissible or probable inference” that functions as a “bursting bubble” — once the proponent introduces any rebutting evidence, the presumption disappears, and the ultimate burden remains with the contestant. The court refused to instruct the jury on a “presumption of undue influence,” holding that such language would conflict with § 30-2431 and mislead the jury. This distinction is critical for practitioners: Nebraska does not shift the burden of proof to the proponent even when a confidential relationship and suspicious circumstances are shown.

An important distinction exists between will contests and inter vivos transfer challenges. In Mock v. Neumeister, 296 Neb. 376, 892 N.W.2d 569 (2017), the court clarified that undue influence in will contests requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence, while challenges to lifetime deed transfers require the higher clear and convincing evidence standard. This difference can be outcome-determinative.

The testamentary capacity standard requires proof that the testator (1) knew the nature of the act of making a will; (2) knew the nature and extent of their property; (3) knew the proposed disposition; and (4) recognized the natural objects of their bounty. Capacity is assessed at the time of execution, not at any other point. The proponent bears the initial burden, but once a prima facie case is made, the burden of going forward shifts to the contestant.

Landmark and recent Nebraska cases with full citations

The following cases constitute the essential body of Nebraska precedent on trust and estate disputes. Each includes verified citations and holdings.

1. Goff v. Weeks, 246 Neb. 163, 517 N.W.2d 387 (1994) — Established the four-element test for undue influence that remains controlling law. The court held that while the decedent was susceptible to influence during hospitalization, there was insufficient evidence of a disposition to exercise undue influence or that beneficiary changes were clearly the product of such influence. The court noted undue influence may be “reasonably inferred from the facts and circumstances surrounding the actor; his life, character, and mental condition.”

2. In re Estate of Hedke, 278 Neb. 727, 775 N.W.2d 13 (2009) — The court reversed a finding of no undue influence where a son improperly influenced his 92-year-old mother with dementia to execute a will and trust giving him the bulk of the estate. The court held that undue influence “rests largely on inferences drawn from facts and circumstances surrounding the testator’s life, character, and mental condition.” The decision also established that devisees lack standing to sue on behalf of the estate; a special administrator must be appointed.

3. In re Estate of Clinger, 292 Neb. 237, 872 N.W.2d 37 (2015) — The seminal modern ruling on the “presumption” of undue influence. The court affirmed a jury verdict finding no undue influence and held that the so-called presumption is merely a permissible inference that operates as a “bursting bubble.” An instruction using the word “presumption” would mislead the jury. Defined undue influence as “manipulation that destroys the testator’s free agency and substitutes another’s purpose for the testator’s.”

4. In re Estate of Barger, 303 Neb. 817, 931 N.W.2d 660 (2019) — Confirmed that no-contest clauses are unenforceable if probable cause exists for instituting proceedings under § 30-24,103. Also addressed trust termination and winding-up duties, holding that after termination a trustee retains only a nonbeneficial interest for distribution purposes.

5. In re Estate of Walker, 315 Neb. 510, 997 N.W.2d 595 (2023) — An 84-year-old decedent’s will naming one son as sole beneficiary (omitting three others) was refused probate by the county court. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that a document purported to be a prior will was admissible to show a “constant and abiding scheme for the distribution of property,” rebutting charges of undue influence and lack of testamentary capacity.

6. In re Estate of Koetter, 312 Neb. 549, 980 N.W.2d 376 (2022) — The court affirmed a jury finding that a 2014 will was invalid due to undue influence but vacated the district court’s attorney fee award because fee determinations in will contest proceedings must be made by the county court. Reiterated the four-element test and preponderance standard.

7. Rafert v. Meyer, 290 Neb. 219, 859 N.W.2d 332 (2015) — Landmark trust case holding that an attorney-trustee who provided false addresses to insurance companies breached fiduciary duty. The court ruled that (1) a trustee cannot draft trust terms that abrogate mandatory duties under the UTC; (2) an exculpatory clause is invalid where the drafting attorney never met the settlor; and (3) the duty to report danger to trust property is immediate, not deferred until the next annual report.

8. In re William R. Zutavern Revocable Trust, 309 Neb. 542, 961 N.W.2d 807 (2021) — Held that contingent beneficiaries qualify as “beneficiaries” under the NUTC even though their interests had not vested, reversing dismissal of their petition for trustee removal. Affirmed that all trustee powers are held in a fiduciary capacity.

9. In re Estate of Forgey, 298 Neb. 865, 906 N.W.2d 618 (2018) — Assessed penalties against a trustee who failed to collect rent from himself and another beneficiary for use of trust property (a cattle operation). Found that continuing pre-death business operations without adjusting for fiduciary duties constituted breach. Also penalized the trustee for losses from failing to file a federal estate tax return.

10. In re Trust Created by Fenske, 303 Neb. 430, 930 N.W.2d 43 (2019) — Denied a request to remove a bank as trustee, holding that removal was inconsistent with a material purpose of the trust where the settlor specifically chose an independent, non-family institutional trustee. Courts consider the settlor’s intent regarding trustee identity when evaluating removal requests.

11. In re Estate of Graham, 301 Neb. 594, 919 N.W.2d 714 (2018) — Established the three-element test for surcharging a personal representative: (1) breach of fiduciary duty; (2) causation; and (3) damages. Held that surcharge motions are properly brought within the probate proceeding.

12. In re Estate of Anderson, 311 Neb. 758, 974 N.W.2d 847 (2022) — Clarified that when a will contest transfers to district court, the county court retains original jurisdiction over probate matters outside the contest itself, including special administrator petitions. Involved a will expressly disinheriting children and devising most assets to a non-family personal representative.

Breach of fiduciary duty by trustees under Nebraska’s mandatory duty framework

The Nebraska Uniform Trust Code imposes a hierarchy of mandatory duties that cannot be waived by the trust instrument. Section 30-3866 requires good faith administration in accordance with the trust’s terms and purposes. Section 30-3867 mandates the duty of loyalty — administering the trust solely for beneficiaries’ interests. Section 30-3868 requires impartiality among multiple beneficiaries. Section 30-3869 imposes the prudent person standard.

The duty to inform and report under § 30-3878 requires trustees to keep qualified beneficiaries reasonably informed about trust administration and material facts necessary to protect their interests, including annual reports. In Rafert v. Meyer (2015), the court held this duty is immediate when danger threatens trust property — a trustee cannot wait for the next scheduled report.

Trustee removal under § 30-3862 permits the settlor, cotrustee, or beneficiary to petition for removal based on serious breach, lack of cooperation among cotrustees, unfitness or persistent failure to administer effectively, or substantial change in circumstances combined with a request by all qualified beneficiaries. In Sherman v. Sherman, 16 Neb. App. 766, 751 N.W.2d 168 (2008), the Court of Appeals upheld trustee removal for self-dealing. In In re Charles C. Wells Revocable Trust, 15 Neb. App. 624, 734 N.W.2d 323 (2007), cumulative factual findings of misconduct supported removal even without the trial court specifically citing § 30-3862.

Exculpatory clauses under § 30-3897 are unenforceable if they relieve a trustee of liability for bad faith or reckless indifference, or if they were drafted by the trustee without fair disclosure to the settlor. This provision served as the basis for the court’s holding in Rafert v. Meyer that the attorney-trustee’s self-drafted exculpatory clause was invalid.

Trust modification is available under several provisions. Section 30-3837 allows modification by consent of all beneficiaries if consistent with a material purpose (or by consent of the settlor and all beneficiaries even if inconsistent). Section 30-3838 permits court-ordered modification when unanticipated circumstances justify deviation from the trust’s terms — broadened under the NUTC to cover both administrative and dispositive provisions. In In re Trust Created by Augustin, 27 Neb. App. 593, 935 N.W.2d 493 (2019), the Court of Appeals held that a trustee has an affirmative duty to petition for modification when they know or should know of circumstances justifying deviation.

Estate administration disputes: removal, creditor claims, and accounting

Personal representative removal under § 30-2454 allows any interested person to petition for removal “for cause at any time.” Statutory grounds include: removal serving the best interests of the estate, intentional misrepresentation during appointment, disregarding court orders, incapacity, mismanagement, or failure to perform duties. Upon receiving notice, the personal representative “shall not act” except to account, correct maladministration, or preserve the estate.

In In re Estate of Webb, 20 Neb. App. 12, 817 N.W.2d 304 (2012), the Court of Appeals affirmed removal of a personal representative who failed to file inventory within the statutory three-month period (§ 30-2467), failed to keep heirs informed, had potential conflicts of interest, failed to obtain an appraisal, and claimed ownership of joint bank accounts containing possibly commingled funds. More recently, in In re Estate of Chess, 32 Neb. App. 191 (2024), the Court of Appeals affirmed removal and surcharge of a personal representative who failed to collect fair market rent, used estate funds for unreasonable expenses, and failed to act on declining stock values.

Creditor claims are governed by §§ 30-2483 through 30-2489. Claims must be presented by either filing a written statement with the clerk or commencing proceedings against the personal representative under § 30-2486. Nebraska courts strictly enforce the formality requirement: in In re Estate of Lakin, 310 Neb. 271, 965 N.W.2d 365 (2021), the Supreme Court held that merely discussing a promissory note with the copersonal representative and emailing documentation did not constitute proper claim presentation. The nonclaim period is typically two months after published notice or three years after death (§ 30-2485).

Beneficiary protections against disinheritance include the elective share (§ 30-2313), which gives a surviving spouse the right to elect up to one-half of the augmented estate, effectively preventing complete spousal disinheritance. The pretermitted child statute (§ 30-2321) protects children born or adopted after will execution, granting them an intestate share unless the omission was clearly intentional. In In re Estate of Chrisp, 276 Neb. 966, 759 N.W.2d 87 (2009), the court held that premarital transfers to a revocable trust are excluded from the augmented estate, protecting pre-marriage estate plans for blended families. In In re Estate of Psota, 297 Neb. 570, 900 N.W.2d 790 (2017), the court established a conjunctive test for challenging waivers of elective share: a spouse must prove both involuntariness and unconscionability.

Common dispute patterns and how Nebraska courts resolve them

Nebraska’s agricultural character gives rise to distinctive trust and estate disputes. Farm and ranch succession disputes — where one child operated the family farm and others did not — frequently involve allegations that the farming child exerted undue influence to inherit the land. In re Estate of Hedke (2009) exemplifies this pattern: the son who managed his mother’s affairs received the bulk of the estate while the sister was marginalized. The court reversed the finding of no undue influence, recognizing the classic dynamic of a caregiving child leveraging access and dependency.

Self-dealing by trustees in agricultural operations is another recurring pattern. In In re Estate of Forgey (2018), the trustee continued operating the family cattle business on trust land without paying rent — essentially benefiting himself at the expense of other beneficiaries. The court penalized this failure to separate personal use from fiduciary administration, establishing that continuing pre-death business arrangements does not excuse a trustee from impartiality obligations.

Institutional trustee disputes arise when beneficiaries seek to replace bank or corporate trustees. In re Trust Created by Fenske (2019) demonstrates that courts will deny removal when the settlor specifically chose an institutional trustee for independence, treating the trustee’s identity as connected to a material purpose of the trust.

Late-life will changes trigger frequent contests. In re Estate of Walker (2023) involved an 84-year-old who changed her will to benefit only one of four sons shortly before death. The court’s holding that prior wills can demonstrate a “constant and abiding scheme” for property distribution provides an important evidentiary tool for proponents defending such late changes.

Exculpatory clause disputes arise when professional trustees attempt to shield themselves from liability through self-drafted trust language. Rafert v. Meyer (2015) drew a firm line: when the attorney who drafted the trust also serves as trustee and includes an exculpatory clause without meeting the settlor or explaining the terms, the clause fails under § 30-3897’s fairness requirement.

Key statutes reference table

 

Conclusion

Nebraska’s trust and estate litigation landscape rests on two pillars: a codified statutory system derived from the Uniform Probate Code and Uniform Trust Code, and a substantial body of appellate case law that has refined standards in meaningful ways over the past decade. Three developments stand out as particularly significant for practitioners. First, the Clinger (2015) ruling definitively settled the undue influence “presumption” question — it is an inference, not a true presumption, and the burden never shifts. Second, the Rafert (2015) decision established that mandatory UTC duties cannot be contracted away through self-drafted exculpatory clauses, creating genuine accountability for professional trustees. Third, the jurisdictional clarifications in Anderson (2022) and Koetter (2022) resolved confusion about county versus district court authority during transferred will contests, giving litigants clearer procedural roadmaps.

If you are facing a trust or estate dispute in Nebraska — whether you need to contest a will, challenge a trustee’s conduct, defend against a claim of undue influence, or remove a personal representative who is mismanaging an estate — the stakes are high and the deadlines are unforgiving. Nebraska law imposes strict statutes of limitations on will contests, trust challenges, and creditor claims, and missing those windows can permanently bar your rights. At Horgan Law LLC, we have extensive experience litigating trust and estate disputes across Nebraska’s county courts, district courts, and appellate courts. We understand the procedural complexities of transferred will contests, the evidentiary demands of proving or defending against undue influence claims, and the fiduciary accountability standards that govern trustees and personal representatives under the Nebraska Uniform Trust Code and Probate Code. Whether you are a beneficiary protecting your inheritance, a fiduciary defending your administration, or a family navigating the difficult intersection of grief and legal conflict, we are here to help. Contact Horgan Law LLC today to schedule a consultation and discuss your options.

Horgan Law – Your Trusted Omaha Law Firm

If you’re looking for an Omaha law firm that combines the wisdom of experience with the energy and ambition of youth, look no further than Horgan Law, P.L.L.C. As experienced Lawyers in Omaha, NE, we apply our knowledge to every case to get you the best possible outcome. Our success is measured by yours-no matter what your situation is, we’ll be there to help you through it.

Ready to experience the difference? Contact Horgan Law today to discuss how we can assist. Your legal journey just got easier.