In re Estate of Walker
| Docket Number | S-22-979 |
| Decision Date | 01 December 2023 |
| Parties | In re Estate of Rita A. Walker, deceased. Mark E. Walker, appellant, v. Michael J. Walker, appellee. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
1
315 Neb. 510
In re Estate of Rita A. Walker, deceased. Mark E. Walker, appellant,
v.
Michael J. Walker, appellee.
No. S-22-979
Supreme Court of Nebraska
December 1, 2023
1. Guardians and Conservators: Judgments: Appeal and Error. Appeals of matters arising under the Nebraska Probate Code are reviewed for error on the record. When reviewing a judgment for errors on the record, the inquiry is whether the decision conforms to the law, is supported by competent evidence, and is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable.
2. Decedents' Estates: Appeal and Error. An appellate court, in reviewing a probate court judgment for errors appearing on the record, will not substitute its factual findings for those of the probate court where competent evidence supports those findings.
3. Wills. A prior will, executed when the testator's testamentary or mental capacity was and is unquestioned, and as to which the existence of undue influence is not charged, and which conforms substantially as to the results produced to the instrument contested, may be considered as competent evidence for the purpose of refuting charges of undue influence or want of testamentary or mental capacity by showing that the testator had a constant and abiding scheme for the distribution of his or her property.
4. Rules of Evidence: Hearsay: Appeal and Error. Apart from rulings under the residual hearsay exception, an appellate court reviews for clear error the factual findings underpinning a trial court's hearsay ruling and reviews de novo the court's ultimate determination to admit evidence over a hearsay objection or exclude evidence on hearsay grounds.
5. Appeal and Error. In a de novo review, an appellate court reaches a conclusion independent of the trial court.
[315 Neb. 511] 6. Hearsay: Words and Phrases. Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
7. Rules of Evidence: Hearsay: Words and Phrases. A "statement," for purposes of the Nebraska Evidence Rules, is an oral or written assertion or nonverbal conduct of a person, if it is intended by him or her as an assertion.
8. Hearsay. An out-of-court statement is not hearsay if the proponent offers it for a purpose other than proving the truth of the matter asserted.
9. Rules of Evidence: Hearsay: Intent. A statement of the declarant's then-existing state of mind, such as intent, is excluded from the hearsay rule.
10. Rules of Evidence: Appeal and Error. Where the Nebraska Evidence Rules commit the evidentiary question at issue to the discretion of the trial court, an appellate court reviews the admissibility of evidence for an abuse of discretion.
11. Judges: Words and Phrases. A judicial abuse of discretion exists only when the reasons or rulings of a trial judge are clearly untenable, unfairly depriving a litigant of a substantial right and denying a just result in matters submitted for disposition.
12. Trial: Evidence. Evidence that is irrelevant is inadmissible.
13. Evidence. Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.
14. Evidence: Proof. The bar for establishing evidentiary relevance is not a high one and requires only the probative value of the evidence to be something more than nothing.
15. Wills: Evidence. Competent evidence of a testator's constant and abiding scheme for the distribution of his or her property is not limited to prior duly executed wills.
16. Trial: Evidence: Appeal and Error. In a civil case, the admission or exclusion of evidence is not reversible error unless it unfairly prejudiced a substantial right of the complaining party.
17. Evidence: Words and Phrases. Competent evidence is evidence that is admissible and tends to establish a fact in issue.
18. Trial: Evidence: Proof. Where a party has shown that competent evidence exists to support his or her burden of proof, and competent evidence to the contrary has been produced, or different conclusions or inferences may reasonably be drawn from the evidence, it is then exclusively the province of the fact finder to determine the weight of the evidence and judge the credibility of witnesses.
[315 Neb. 512] 19. Wills: Proof. When the validity of a will is contested, the proponent of the will has the burden of establishing prima facie proof of due execution, death, testamentary capacity, and venue, whereas contestants have the burden of establishing undue influence, fraud, duress, mistake, or revocation.
20.____:_____. In a will contest, parties have the ultimate burden of per suasion as to matters with respect to which they have the initial burden of proof.
21. Trial: Evidence: Presumptions. In a bench trial, the court is presumed to have considered only competent and relevant evidence in making its decision.
22. Appeal and Error. An appellate court is not obligated to engage in an analysis that is not needed to adjudicate the controversy before it.
Appeal from the County Court for Douglas County: Stephanie S. Shearer, Judge.
Lisa M. Line, of Brodkey, Cuddigan, Peebles, Belmont &Line, L.L.P., for appellant.
David D. Begley, of Elder Law &Estate Planning of Nebraska, David D. Begley, P.C., L.L.O., for appellee.
Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke, Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.
Cassel, J.
I. INTRODUCTION
In this appeal from a successful will contest, the proponent of the proposed will contends that the court erred in excluding from evidence exhibit 7, which purported to be a prior will signed by the decedent, and finding the proposed will was the product of undue influence. We conclude that exhibit 7 was admissible under a hearsay exception and that it was relevant. And because its consideration may weigh on the court's determinations regarding testamentary capacity and undue influence, we reverse the court's order refusing to admit the proposed will to probate and remand the cause with directions.
[315 Neb. 513] II. BACKGROUND
1. Probate Proceedings and Will Contest
On September 26, 2021, Rita A. Walker died at the age of 84. Thereafter, one of her sons, Mark E. Walker, filed a petition in county court for formal probate of a will purportedly executed by Rita on September 15, 2021 (the proposed will). Mark is the proposed will's only proponent.
As relevant here, the proposed will named Mark as the sole beneficiary and personal representative of Rita's estate. It omitted her three other sons, Michael J. Walker, Stephen W. Walker, and Richard A. Walker. Michael is the proposed will's opponent.
Michael objected to the probate of the proposed will, alleging, in pertinent part, that (1) Rita lacked testamentary capacity as of September 15, 2021, which was 11 days prior to her death, and (2) the proposed will was the product of undue influence.
2. Bench Trial
The county court held a bench trial on Mark's petition for formal probate of the proposed will, during which it received evidence from both parties. The evidence included the testimony of Rita's four sons; a family friend and notary, who was present when Rita signed the proposed will; and a nurse from a rehabilitation facility. The court also received various exhibits. In light of Michael's objections, the evidence substantially related to Rita's purported lack of testamentary capacity at the time of the proposed will's execution and his claim of undue influence.
The court excluded from evidence a typed document offered by Mark as exhibit 7, which purported to be a prior will signed by Rita in February 2016. We will discuss exhibit 7 in more detail later in the opinion.
[315 Neb. 514] 3. County Court's Order
Following the bench trial, the county court entered an order concluding that the proposed will was validly executed, but refusing to admit it to probate because, the court found, (1) Mark failed to meet his burden to prove Rita's testamentary capacity at the time of execution and (2) the proposed will was the product of undue influence. The order did not specifically address exhibit 7.
Based on its findings of lack of testamentary capacity and the existence of undue influence, the court ordered the case to proceed intestate and appointed Michael as personal representative.
4. Motion for New Trial or to Alter and Amend Order
Mark filed a motion for new trial or, in the alternative, to alter and amend the order. Following a hearing, the court entered an order "den[ying]" the motion. In pertinent part, it rejected Mark's argument that the court erred in not admitting exhibit 7 into evidence at trial. We will discuss the court's reasoning in more detail in our analysis.
Mark filed a timely appeal, which we moved to our docket.[1]
III. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
Mark assigns, reordered, that the county court erred in (1) determining that exhibit 7 was inadmissible hearsay, (2) determining that exhibit 7 was not relevant and therefore inadmissible, and (3) determining that the proposed will was void due to undue influence and ordering the estate to proceed in intestacy with Michael as personal representative.
IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Appeals of matters arising under the Nebraska Probate Code are reviewed for error on the record. When reviewing a judgment for errors on the record, the inquiry is whether the
[315 Neb. 515] decision conforms to the law, is supported by competent evidence, and is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable.[2]An appellate court, in reviewing a probate court judgment for errors appearing on the record, will not substitute its factual findings for those of the probate court where competent evidence supports those findings.[3]
Additional standards of review will be set forth, as...
To continue reading
Request your trial