Estate of Krueger, In re

• Decision Date: 01 June 1990
• Docket Number: No. 88-497,88-497
• Citation: 235 Neb. 518,455 N.W.2d 809
• Parties: In re ESTATE Of Adella KRUEGER, Deceased. Eugene BREDEHOFT, Appellee, v. Ronald L. CHRISTENSEN, Personal Representative of the Estate of Adella Krueger, Deceased, Appellee; Glendoris A. Krueger, Personal Representative of the Estate of Walter Krueger, Deceased, Appellant.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

Page 809

455 N.W.2d 809

235 Neb. 518

In re ESTATE Of Adella KRUEGER, Deceased.

Eugene BREDEHOFT, Appellee, v. Ronald L. CHRISTENSEN, Personal Representative of the Estate of Adella Krueger, Deceased, Appellee;

Glendoris A. Krueger, Personal Representative of the Estate of Walter Krueger, Deceased, Appellant.

No. 88-497.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

June 1, 1990.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Decedents' Estates: Claims: Appeal and Error. The judgment of a trial court determining whether a claimant may be reimbursed for services provided a decedent during the decedent's lifetime will not be set aside on appeal unless clearly wrong.

2. Decedents' Estates: Claims: Appeal and Error. In an action at law, an appellate court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party. An appeal from the allowance of a claim in probate is tried as an action at law.

3. Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. An appellate court cannot acquire jurisdiction of a cause if the court from which the appeal was taken lacked jurisdiction.

4. Judgments: Courts: Appeal and Error. Probate judgments of the county court may not be brought to the district court for review by a petition in error.

5. Pleadings. The character of a pleading is determined by its content, not by its caption.

6. Rules of Evidence: Hearsay. A statement is not hearsay if the statement is offered against a party and is his own statement, in either his individual or representative capacity.

7. Decedents' Estates: Claims: Proof. The burden of proof is upon the claimant seeking compensation for services rendered during the life of the deceased person to prove an agreement, express or implied, to pay for the services.

8. Contracts: Equity: Quantum Meruit. Where benefits have been received and retained under such circumstances that it would be inequitable and unconscionable to permit the party receiving them to avoid payment therefor, the law requires the party receiving and retaining the benefits to pay their reasonable value.

9. Decedents' Estates: Claims: Presumptions. When there is a family relationship between a decedent and a claimant seeking compensation for services rendered the deceased, the claimant must rebut by competent evidence the presumption that the services were rendered gratuitously. The presumption diminishes in direct proportion to the remoteness of the degree and nature of the family relationship and the character of the duties performed.

10. Actions: Quantum Meruit. An action based on quantum meruit for labor and materials provided is grounded upon an implied promise to pay the reasonable value thereof.

11. Actions: Quantum Meruit: Value of Goods: Proof. Since there is no specific standard by which the reasonable value of labor and materials furnished shall be proved, prima facie proof thereof is made when a reasonable inference of such value flows from the evidence adduced.

12. Claims: Evidence. When the nature and rendition of services has been shown, the claimant's testimony concerning his or her opinion as to the value of the services is sufficient evidence.

Brian F. Beckner, Osceola, for appellant.

Noyes W. Rogers, of Leininger, Grant, Rogers & Maul, Columbus, for appellee Bredehoft.

Robert L. Mills, of Mills, Mills & Papik, Osceola, for appellee Christensen.

HASTINGS, C.J., and BOSLAUGH, WHITE, CAPORALE, SHANAHAN, GRANT and FAHRNBRUCH, JJ.

FAHRNBRUCH, Justice.

This is an appeal from the allowance of a $9,000 claim filed by decedent's nephew for farm work and the handling of his aunt's cow-calf operation from February 1984 until the aunt died on September 28, 1986.

We affirm the order of the district court for Polk County which affirmed the Polk County Court's allowance of the nephew's claim against the aunt's estate.

On appeal, the personal representative of the estate of the decedent's brother, in whose name the appeal of decedent's brother has been revived, assigns several errors, which combine to claim that the court erred in (1) admitting hearsay testimony, (2) finding that the evidence was sufficient to meet the claimant's burden of proof, and (3) entering judgment of $9,000, which was excessive and not supported by the evidence.

The judgment of a trial court determining whether a claimant may be reimbursed for services provided a decedent during the decedent's lifetime will not be set aside on appeal unless clearly wrong. In re Estate of Bouma. Nehls v. Giles, 206 Neb. 209, 292 N.W.2d 37 (1980). See, also, In re Estate of Snover, 233 Neb. 198, 443 N.W.2d 894 (1989) (holding that the Supreme Court reviews probate cases for error appearing on the record).

In an action at law, an appellate court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party. State v. Smith, 231 Neb. 740, 437 N.W.2d 803 (1989). An appeal from the allowance of a claim in probate is tried as an action at law. Gunn v. Emerald, Inc., 201 Neb. 635, 271 N.W.2d 334 (1978).

Prior to her death, Adella Krueger (decedent) operated a 335-acre farm in Polk County. Roughly 168 acres were used for cropland, and the remainder was used to grow hay and as pastureland. In 1978 and 1979, Eugene Bredehoft (claimant), a nephew of the decedent's, performed custom work on his aunt's farm. The work involved preparing the ground, planting and cultivating corn, and preparing and planting the wheat ground. For that labor, the claimant was paid $2,500 in 1978 and $2,000 in 1979. As of 1984, the claimant and his brother produced row crops on 168 acres of the decedent's land, distributing 40 percent of the crop to the decedent and retaining 60 percent.

It is undisputed that when the decedent became ill in February 1984, the claimant began handling the decedent's cow-calf operation. It is also undisputed that during the years 1984, 1985, and 1986, the claimant planted, cultivated, harvested, and marketed wheat crops for his aunt and that the aunt received the total sales income of $2,435.55. The record reflects that the claimant also managed the decedent's hay operation and performed other chores on his aunt's farm during the same time period.

From February 1984 until the decedent died in September 1986, her nephew received no payment from his aunt for handling her cow-calf operation; for planting, cultivating, harvesting, and marketing her wheat crops; for managing the decedent's hay operation; or for performing other farm chores during 1984, 1985, or 1986.

The decedent died intestate. Her surviving heirs were Walter Krueger (brother); Robert Krueger (grandnephew); and Eugene and Carroll Bredehoft (nephews). A petition for formal adjudication of intestacy, determination of heirs, and appointment of a personal representative was filed by the claimant on October 3, 1986. A personal representative was appointed on October 29, 1986. After his aunt's death, the claimant nephew filed his claim for $9,000 against her intestate estate for services during a 31-month period. The personal representative disallowed the claim. On February 25, 1987, the claimant petitioned the county court for allowance of his claim in the amount of $9,000. In his petition, the claimant alleged that during the years of 1984, 1985, and 1986, he managed the decedent's cattle herd; planted, harvested, and delivered wheat; and assisted in harvesting hay. The decedent's brother filed an objection to the claim, and the matter was set for trial.

At the trial, Adella Krueger's personal representative, through his lawyer, stated that he was convinced that the claimant had performed the work for which he had made a claim. The personal representative also told the court that he was inclined to think the claimant ought to be paid. The personal representative's only reservation was whether, because of the aunt-nephew relationship, it was intended that the claimant be paid.

The county judge found that $9,000 was a reasonable amount for the services provided by the claimant to the decedent. The decedent's brother appealed to the district court for Polk County and that court affirmed the Polk County Court.

Before addressing the appellant's assignments of error, it is first necessary to determine whether the decedent's brother properly appealed the county court judgment to the district court. An appellate court cannot acquire jurisdiction of a cause if the court from which the appeal was taken lacked jurisdiction. In re Guardianship of Potter, 235 Neb. 149, 453 N.W.2d 755 (1990). The decedent's brother filed a "petition in error" listing the alleged errors of the county court and requesting that the county court's judgment be reversed by the district court. Probate judgments of the county court may not be brought to the district court for review by a petition in error. Potter, supra. However, in contrast to Potter, in this case the brother timely filed a notice of appeal with the county court prior to filing the "petition in error." In view of the timely notice of appeal filed by the brother, the pleading labeled a "petition in error" was in actuality nothing more than a listing of the brother's assignments of error. The character of a pleading is determined by its content, not by its caption. Stigge v. Graves, 213 Neb. 847, 332 N.W.2d 49 (1983). A docket fee was deposited by the brother. The county court did not require a cash bond or undertaking for the appeal. See Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-2729(4)(a) (Reissue 1989). There being compliance with § 25-2729, the district court had jurisdiction of the appeal.

In the first assignment of error, the appellant claims the trial court erred in admitting hearsay evidence. At trial, over objection, the claimant testified that the decedent asked him to care for the cow-calf herd and told him that she would pay him when she had extra money. He testified that the same arrangement existed in regard to farming the wheat land and managing the haying operation. The nephew further testified that his aunt never had sufficient funds to pay him and that it...