White v. White
| Decision Date | 28 March 2023 |
| Docket Number | A-22-024 |
| Parties | Yvonne M. White, formerly known as Yvonne M Gubser, appellee, v. Jamison Patrick White and Ryan Howard White, Copersonal Representatives of the Estate of Leonard P. White, deceased, appellants. |
| Court | Nebraska Court of Appeals |
1. Summary Judgment: Appeal and Error. An appellate court affirms a lower court's grant of summary judgment if the pleadings and admitted evidence show that there is no genuine issue as to any material facts or as to the ultimate inferences that may be drawn from the facts and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
2.__:__ . In reviewing a summary judgment, an appellate court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom the judgment was granted, and gives that party the benefit of all reasonable inferences deducible from the evidence.
3. Judgments: Appeal and Error. When reviewing questions of law, an appellate court resolves the questions independently of the lower court's conclusion.
4.__:__ . In a bench trial of a law action, a trial court's factual find ings have the effect of a jury verdict and will not be set aside on appeal unless clearly wrong.
5. __ __. After a bench trial of a law action, an appellate court does not reweigh evidence, but considers the evidence in the light most favorable to the successful party and resolves evidentiary conflicts in favor of the successful party.
6. Decedents' Estates: Claims: Time. The requirements of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2485 (Reissue 2016) are mandatory, and where a claim is not filed within the time provided in the statute, it is barred.
7. Decedents' Estates. The purpose of Neb Rev. Stat. § 30-2485 (Reissue 2016) is to facilitate and expedite proceedings to distribute a decedent's estate including an early appraisal of the respective rights of interested persons, which include creditors, and prompt settlement of demands against the estate.
8. Decedents' Estates: Claims: Notice. Mere notice to a representative of an estate regarding a possible demand or claim against the estate does not constitute presenting or filing a claim under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2486 (Reissue 2016).
9. Antenuptial Agreements. Premarital agreements are contracts made in contemplation of marriage.
10. Contracts: Intent. If a contract is unambiguous, the intent of the parties must be determined from the contents of the contract.
11. Contracts. The interpretation of a contract and whether the contract is ambiguous are questions of law subject to independent review.
12. Appeal and Error. In order to be considered by an appellate court, an alleged error must be both specifically assigned and specifically argued in the brief of the party asserting the error.
Appeal from the District Court for Washington County: John E. Samson, Judge.
Perry A. Pirsch, of Pirsch Legal Services, P.C., L.L.O., for appellants.
Brent M. Kuhn and Haley L. Cannon, of Brent Kuhn Law, for appellee.
Jamison Patrick White and Ryan Howard White, as copersonal representatives of the estate of Leonard P. White, appeal the order of the district court for Washington County, Nebraska, granting summary judgment in favor of Yvonne M. White, formerly known as Yvonne M. Gubser, based on its finding that Yvonne was entitled to the payment of $100,000 from Leonard's estate, pursuant to the terms of a premarital agreement between Yvonne and Leonard. Jamison and Ryan also appeal the district court's award of a camper to Yvonne based on its interpretation of the premarital agreement.
Yvonne and Leonard were married on October 14, 2016. On September 30, prior to the marriage, the parties executed a premarital agreement. The premarital agreement included provisions regarding ownership of property the parties purchased after the marriage, the parties' intent that each would have the right to dispose of her or his separate property without the other acquiring an interest in that property, and a nondis-cretionary provision that if Leonard died before Yvonne, she would receive $100,000 from his estate.
Leonard died on October 19, 2018. On March 6, 2019, Leonard's two sons, Jamison and Ryan, filed an application for informal probate of Leonard's will and requested they be appointed copersonal representatives of the estate. Attached to this filing was a copy of Leonard's will, executed on November 10, 2006, which provided for a pourover to his living trust; a copy of the premarital agreement was also attached.
The application included statements that Yvonne and Leonard had been married at the time of Leonard's death and that the premarital agreement included a provision in which Yvonne and Leonard "retain[ed] all rights in and with respect to her or his own separate property" and had the absolute and unrestricted right to dispose of such property in any manner. The application stated that a separate section of the premarital agreement set forth provisions Leonard had made for Yvonne's benefit in the event he predeceased her. It acknowledged that "[t]he Premarital Agreement between Yvonne . . . and [Leonard] executed on September 30, 2016 was unrevoked and remained in force and effect as of [Leonard's] death." The first notice to creditors was published March 12, 2019, and it directed claims to be filed by May 13. On May 30, Jamison and Ryan filed an inventory, which showed there was no jointly owned property, and it listed a "2015 Cyclone 4000 Fifth Wheel Camper" (Camper) as property of the estate.
On September 27, 2019, Yvonne filed a complaint in district court against Jamison and Ryan in their capacity as copersonal representatives of Leonard's estate, alleging that the estate was currently subject to probate and that the copersonal representatives had claimed the estate had ownership of the Camper; however, under the terms of the premarital agreement, Yvonne claimed she was the rightful owner of the Camper. She also alleged that pursuant to the premarital agreement, she was to receive $100,000 from Leonard's estate, but that Jamison and Ryan had failed, refused, and/or neglected to pay in accordance with the terms of the premarital agreement. Jamison and Ryan moved to dismiss Yvonne's complaint on the basis that any matter arising from the premarital agreement related to Leonard's estate and that pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-517(1) (Cum. Supp. 2022), the county court had exclusive original jurisdiction of all matters related to decedents' estates.
No order on the motion to dismiss appears in our record, but Jamison and Ryan subsequently filed an answer, alleging, as relevant to this appeal, that the premarital agreement did not provide for any camper to be distributed to Yvonne and that Yvonne did not make a timely claim under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2314(3) (Reissue 2016); the answer also alleged that Yvonne failed to make a timely, valid claim in the estate proceedings to enforce the premarital agreement. They asserted the affirmative defenses of statute of limitations, laches, and partial satisfaction through the conversion of Leonard's personal property. In her reply, Yvonne alleged that at the time of the filing of the initial pleading for the estate proceedings, Jamison and Ryan had attached a copy of the premarital agreement and acknowledged its validity, which occurred during the claim-filing time period. She asserted that by doing so, they had made an admission as to the claims under the premarital agreement and were therefore precluded from denying them.
Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. Following a hearing, the district court found Jamison and Ryan had judicially admitted in the probate proceedings that the premarital agreement was unrevoked and remained in full force and effect. It found that they had waived the necessity of Yvonne's filing a claim and that her claim was timely filed and not barred by any applicable statute of limitations. The district court rendered judgment for Yvonne in the amount of $100,000. But the district court found a genuine issue of material fact regarding the ownership of the Camper and denied the motion for summary judgment on that issue.
After a trial on the issue of the Camper ownership, the district court entered an order affirming its previous ruling as it related to the $100,000 payment; it also found that under the four corners of the premarital agreement, the Camper was a personal article that was deemed to be jointly owned, with full rights of survivorship. The district court found Yvonne should be distributed all right, title, and interest in and to the Camper. Jamison and Ryan timely appealed.
Jamison and Ryan assign, restated, that the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Yvonne because she failed to comply with the time requirements of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2485 (Reissue 2016) and that their application for informal probate did not relieve her from doing so. They also assign the court erred in awarding Yvonne the Camper.
An appellate court affirms a lower court's grant of summary judgment if the pleadings and admitted evidence show that there is no genuine issue as to any material facts or as to the ultimate inferences that may be drawn from the facts and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Porter v. Knife River, Inc., 310 Neb. 946, 970 N.W.2d 104 (2022). In reviewing a summary judgment, an appellate court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom the judgment was granted and gives that party the benefit of all reasonable inferences deducible from the evidence. Id. When reviewing questions of law, an appellate...
To continue reading
Request your trial