Scaletta v. Scaletta (In re Scaletta)
| Decision Date | 18 November 2022 |
| Docket Number | S-22-115. |
| Citation | 312 Neb. 953,981 N.W.2d 568 |
| Parties | IN RE ESTATE OF Filadelfo (Jack) SCALETTA, deceased. Carl Scaletta, Jr., et al., appellees, v. Carl Scaletta, Sr., appellant. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
M. H. Weinberg, Omaha, of Weinberg & Weinberg, P.C., for appellant.
Dennis P. Lee, Omaha, of Lee Law Office, for appellee Carl Scaletta, Jr.
Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke, Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.
Carl Scaletta, Sr. (Carl Sr.), appealed to the Nebraska Court of Appeals from the order of the Douglas County Court that ruled on his petition for trust administration. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Neb. Ct. R. App. P. § 2-107(A)(1) (rev. 2022). We granted Carl Sr.’s petition for further review. Based on our reasoning set forth below, we agree with the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that the order from which Carl Sr. attempts to appeal was not a final order, and we therefore affirm the dismissal of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Filadelfo Scaletta, also known as Jack Scaletta (Jack), died in February 2021. Jack left a will that named his nephew, Carl Scaletta, Jr. (Carl Jr.), as personal representative. Letters of personal representative evidencing Carl Jr.’s appointment in the Douglas County probate division, estate case No. PR21-1539, are found in the record. The provisions of the will transferred most of Jack's assets to the Filadelfo (Jack) Scaletta Revocable Living Family Trust (the Trust). Although created on the same day as the will, June 26, 2020, the Trust's existence was separate from the will. Jack named Carl Jr. as trustee of the Trust, and he also named Carl Jr. as his agent pursuant to a power of attorney. Among the beneficiaries of the Trust were Carl Jr. and Carl Sr., who is Carl Jr.’s father and Jack's brother.
On September 7, 2021, Carl Sr. filed a "Petition for Trust Administration Proceeding" with regard to the Trust. Carl Sr. stated that among the reasons he wished to initiate a trust administration action was the fact that after Jack's death, Carl Jr. had transferred to the Trust two bank accounts that Carl Sr. asserted were designated as payable on death (POD) to him. Carl Sr. further stated that he was "requesting records and an accounting with regard to the handling of as[s]ets placed in the FILADELFO (JACK) SCALETTA TRUST and then handled thereafter [and Carl Sr. was] requesting a declaratory judgment as to the proper disposition of assets pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. [§] 25-21,152 [(Reissue 2016)]." We note that the petition for trust administration was filed in the estate case, No. PR21-1539.
In his response to Carl Sr.’s petition, Carl Jr. conceded that the two accounts should have passed to Carl Sr. based on the POD designation and should not have been transferred to the Trust after Jack's death. Carl Jr. therefore requested that the court grant the relief requested by Carl Sr. with respect to those two accounts. But Carl Jr. stated in the response that after Carl Sr. had filed his petition, Carl Sr. had identified four additional accounts that Carl Sr. asserted Carl Jr. had improperly transferred to the Trust before Jack died. Carl Jr. asserted that the transfers prior to Jack's death were authorized and that therefore, the POD designations on those accounts were no longer in effect on the date Jack died. Carl Jr. requested that the court deny Carl Sr.’s requested relief with respect to all accounts other than the two that were transferred after Jack's death.
The county court held a hearing on the issues raised by the pleadings regarding, inter alia, the various bank accounts transferred to the Trust before and after Jack's death. On February 18, 2022, the county court filed an order on what it described as Carl Sr.’s "Petition for Trust Administration and Request for Declaratory Judgment." The court first addressed how the property of the Trust was to be divided among the beneficiaries under the terms of the Trust. Certain specified real property was to be divided between Carl Sr. and Carl Jr., and the remaining unspecified property was to be divided among three beneficiaries with Carl Jr. receiving 50 percent and Jack's sister and Carl Sr. each receiving 25 percent.
The court then addressed the four bank accounts that had been transferred to the Trust in June and July 2020, prior to Jack's death. The court determined that because those accounts had been transferred prior to Jack's death, the POD designations did not prevent the accounts from being properly transferred to the Trust. The county court further determined that the transfers were properly made by Carl Jr. pursuant to his authority under the power of attorney and received as trustee of the Trust and that therefore, those assets should remain in the Trust and be divided among the beneficiaries according to the provisions of the Trust.
The court then addressed the two bank accounts that had been transferred to the Trust in March 2021, after Jack's death. The court found in its order that each account had been transferred to the Trust by Carl Jr. The court noted that each account named Carl Sr. as the POD designee, and the court stated that at the moment of Jack's death, the POD designations went into effect and the accounts passed to Carl Sr. The court determined that the transfer of those two accounts to the Trust after Jack's death was "without authorization or proper authority" and that therefore, the two accounts should be distributed to Carl Sr.
Based on these findings and determinations, the county court ordered that Carl Sr.’s motion for declaratory judgment with regard to the four accounts transferred prior to Jack's death was denied and that the accounts were properly assets of the Trust. The county court further ordered that Carl Sr.’s motion for declaratory judgment with regard to the two accounts transferred after Jack's death was granted, and the court ordered Carl Jr. as trustee to distribute the balance of the accounts plus interest from the Trust to Carl Sr. The county court finally ordered that "the Trustee of the Revocable Living Family Trust, Carl ... Jr., is to provide a complete Accounting to all interested parties no later than March 1, 2022, unless previously submitted and/or accepted by the parties."
Carl Sr. filed a notice of appeal on February 22, 2022. Before Carl Sr. filed a brief of appellant, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal with the following minute entry: The Court of Appeals denied Carl Sr.’s motion for rehearing.
We granted Carl Sr.’s petition for further review.
Carl Sr. claims that the Court of Appeals erred when it determined that the county court's order was not a final, appealable order and when it therefore dismissed his appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
The question of jurisdiction is a question of law. Tegra Corp. v. Boeshart , 311 Neb. 783, 976 N.W.2d 165 (2022). An appellate court independently reviews questions of law decided by a lower court. Heist v. Nebraska Dept. of Corr. Servs., 312 Neb. 480, 979 N.W.2d 772 (2022).
It is the power and duty of an appellate court to determine whether it has jurisdiction over the matter before it, irrespective of whether the issue is raised by the parties. Tegra Corp. v. Boeshart, supra. Therefore, it was appropriate for the Court of Appeals to consider whether the county court's order was final and whether it had jurisdiction over this appeal. We independently review the Court of Appeals’ determination that it lacked appellate jurisdiction.
As the first step in our analysis, it is necessary to clarify the nature of the proceeding that was being addressed in the county court's February 18, 2022, order that Carl Sr. seeks to appeal. The Court of Appeals’ minute entry cites to a case involving a decedent's estate proceeding, and in his argument in opposition to Carl Sr.’s motion for rehearing in the Court of Appeals, Carl Jr. relied on cases involving decedents’ estates. However, in his brief in support of further review, Carl Sr. relies on cases involving administration of trusts, and he argues in part that the county court's order that he seeks to appeal was not preliminary to or "interrelated to a subsequent" determination of the estate, brief for appellant in support of petition for further review at 6, notwithstanding the fact that the caption on the order sought to be appealed states that the order is "In the Matter of the Estate of Filadelfo (Jack) Scaletta, deceased." Whether the county court's order is related to administration of the Trust or whether it is a part of Jack's estate proceeding is relevant to our analysis of whether the order is a final, appealable order.
Carl Sr. filed a petition for trust administration proceeding pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-3812 (Reissue 2016), which provides:
To continue reading
Request your trial