The Nebraska Probate Code, specifically Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2207, outlines the requirements for the appointment of a personal representative. This statute establishes a priority among those who may be appointed to administer an estate. The general order of preference is first to the person nominated in the will, followed by the decedent’s surviving spouse, then other heirs of the decedent, and finally to a creditor of the decedent if no other qualified person is available. In this scenario, Beatrice is the surviving spouse of the decedent, Arthur. Arthur’s will nominated his brother, Charles, as personal representative. However, Beatrice, as the surviving spouse, has a higher priority under Nebraska law than Charles, who is an heir but not the surviving spouse. Therefore, Beatrice has the superior right to be appointed personal representative, assuming she is otherwise qualified and no statutory disqualification exists. The preference given to a surviving spouse over other heirs, even those nominated in a will, is a key aspect of Nebraska’s probate system designed to ensure that the closest family members have the primary role in estate administration. This priority is absolute unless the surviving spouse is disqualified, such as by being a minor, an incapacitated person, or having a conflict of interest that would impair their ability to administer the estate impartially.

In Nebraska, a holographic will, which is entirely written, dated, and signed in the testator’s own handwriting, is valid without attestation by witnesses. This is a specific exception to the general rule requiring two witnesses for a formal will under Nebraska Revised Statutes § 30-2323. The statute explicitly states that a will written entirely in the testator’s handwriting is not required to be attested by witnesses. Therefore, if Elara’s entire will, including the date and signature, is in her own handwriting, it would be considered a valid holographic will in Nebraska, regardless of the absence of witnesses. The key elements are the entirety of the writing being in the testator’s hand, the date, and the signature. This provision aims to provide a method for creating valid testamentary dispositions in circumstances where a formal attestation might be impractical or impossible. The analysis focuses on whether the will meets the statutory definition of a holographic will under Nebraska law.

The Nebraska Probate Code, specifically Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2327, addresses the abatement of devises. Abatement is the process by which beneficiaries’ shares of an estate are reduced when the estate’s assets are insufficient to satisfy all bequests and debts. The statute establishes a priority order for abatement. Generally, specific devises of real or tangible personal property abate ratably with other specific devises, and general devises abate before specific devises. However, the statute allows for the testator’s intent to control. If the will expresses a different order of abatement, that expressed intent will be followed. In the absence of a clearly expressed intent, the statutory order applies. The statutory order prioritizes the reduction of residue first, then general devises, and finally specific devises. However, the question implies a specific devise of a unique heirloom, which is a specific devise. The question asks about the abatement of a specific devise of a unique heirloom when the estate is insufficient to pay debts and expenses. Under Nebraska law, specific devises are generally abated last, after general devises, unless the will specifies otherwise. Therefore, the specific devise of the heirloom would be protected from abatement as much as possible, abating only if other classes of property are exhausted and the will does not indicate a different order. The statute aims to preserve specific gifts as intended by the testator, recognizing their unique nature and the testator’s likely desire to pass these items to specific individuals.

The scenario involves a testamentary trust established in Nebraska. The testator, Eleanor Vance, bequeathed a parcel of farmland to her nephew, Bartholomew Vance, in trust, with the income to be used for Bartholomew’s education and support. The trust instrument specifies that upon Bartholomew’s completion of his doctoral studies in agricultural economics, the trust corpus should be distributed to him outright. Bartholomew has completed his Master’s degree and is currently enrolled in a doctoral program. He has requested the trustee, First National Bank of Omaha, to distribute a portion of the trust corpus to him to purchase advanced farming equipment, which he argues will enhance his ability to manage the farmland and contribute to his overall financial stability, indirectly supporting his educational pursuits. Nebraska law, specifically under the Nebraska Uniform Trust Code (NUTC), governs the administration of trusts. Section 30-3870 of the NUTC addresses the modification and termination of trusts. While a trustee generally has a duty to administer the trust according to its terms, there are provisions for modification or termination under certain circumstances. A key consideration here is whether Bartholomew’s request aligns with the trust’s purpose and if the distribution would be permissible. The trust’s primary purpose, as stated, is for Bartholomew’s education and support, with the ultimate goal of corpus distribution upon completion of his doctorate. Distributing corpus for farm equipment, while potentially beneficial to his future financial well-being and indirectly related to managing the farmland that is the trust corpus, does not directly fulfill the stated educational purpose or meet the condition precedent for outright distribution. The trustee must consider the intent of the settlor, Eleanor Vance. Her clear intent was to provide for Bartholomew’s education and then distribute the property. A distribution of corpus for farm equipment, before the completion of his doctoral studies, would likely be considered a deviation from the trust’s express terms and purpose. Nebraska statutes, like many jurisdictions, emphasize adherence to the settlor’s intent. Unless the trust instrument itself provides for such distributions or there is a specific statutory provision allowing for it under these circumstances (which is not evident here), the trustee would likely be unable to make the requested distribution without risking a breach of trust. The trustee’s duty is to preserve the corpus for the stated purpose and conditions. Therefore, the trustee should deny the request.

In Nebraska, the concept of a “holographic will” is not recognized as a valid form of will. Nebraska Revised Statutes §30-2327 outlines the requirements for a valid will, specifying that a will must be in writing, signed by the testator, and attested to by at least two credible witnesses. A holographic will, which is written entirely in the testator’s handwriting and signed by the testator but lacks witness attestation, does not meet these statutory requirements. Therefore, such a document would be considered invalid as a will in Nebraska. The purpose of the witness requirement is to prevent fraud and undue influence, ensuring that the document genuinely reflects the testator’s testamentary intent. While some states recognize holographic wills, Nebraska law is more stringent in its formal requirements for testamentary instruments. The validity of a will is determined by the laws of the state where the testator was domiciled at the time of death, or where the will was executed if that is the applicable law. In this case, the scenario explicitly places the testator’s domicile in Nebraska, thus Nebraska law governs.

In Nebraska, the Uniform Trust Code, as adopted and modified by state law, governs the administration and interpretation of trusts. Specifically, when a trust instrument is silent on the matter of trustee compensation, Nebraska Revised Statute § 30-3877 provides the framework for determining reasonable compensation. This statute allows a trustee to be compensated for services rendered. The statute further states that if the trust instrument does not specify the trustee’s compensation, the trustee is entitled to reasonable compensation as provided by the terms of the trust, or if not provided in the trust, then by Nebraska law. Nebraska law, in § 30-3877, permits compensation based on the services performed, the responsibilities undertaken, and the value of the trust property. While there is no fixed statutory percentage, courts often look to industry standards, the complexity of the trust’s assets, the time and skill required of the trustee, and the trustee’s performance. In the absence of a specific provision in the trust document, the trustee may petition the court for a determination of reasonable compensation if there is a dispute or to provide certainty. However, the initial right to reasonable compensation exists regardless of court approval, as long as it aligns with the statutory factors. The trustee does not need to wait for a beneficiary to object; they can proactively seek court approval or, if confident in their assessment of reasonableness, take compensation and be prepared to justify it if challenged. The statute does not mandate a specific waiting period before compensation can be taken, but prudence often dictates communication with beneficiaries or seeking court guidance for larger or complex estates.

In Nebraska, the concept of a “pretermitted heir” refers to a child or descendant who is born or adopted after the execution of a will and who is neither provided for nor expressly excluded in the will. Nebraska Revised Statute §30-2302 addresses the rights of such heirs. This statute generally presumes that if a testator fails to provide for a child born or adopted after the execution of the will, that child shall receive a share in the estate as if the testator had died intestate, unless it appears from the will that the omission was intentional. The share is typically calculated from the portion of the estate not passing to a surviving spouse, or from the entire estate if there is no surviving spouse. The statute aims to prevent unintentional disinheritance. For a child to be considered pretermitted, the will must not have been made in contemplation of the child’s birth or adoption, and the child must not have been provided for in the will. The calculation of the pretermitted heir’s share involves determining the net estate available for distribution after debts, expenses, and any specific bequests, and then allocating a portion as if the testator died intestate. For example, if the net estate after debts and expenses is \$500,000 and the will leaves the entire estate to a spouse, and a child is later born and not mentioned, that child would receive a share as if the testator died intestate. Under Nebraska’s intestacy laws for a sole surviving spouse and one child, the spouse would receive \$50,000 plus half of the remaining estate, and the child would receive the other half. If the testator died intestate with a net estate of \$500,000 and no spouse, the child would receive the entire \$500,000. However, the pretermitted heir statute focuses on the share they would receive from the estate *as if* the testator died intestate, meaning their share is carved out from what the will directs, often impacting other beneficiaries. The statute specifies that the pretermitted heir shall receive a share “as if the testator had died intestate,” which means the share is determined by the intestacy laws of Nebraska, applied to the estate remaining after the payment of debts and expenses. This share is taken ratably from the property passing under the will to the beneficiaries other than the surviving spouse. If the will provides for the surviving spouse, the pretermitted heir’s share is taken from the property that would have passed to other beneficiaries. If the will leaves the entire estate to the surviving spouse, and the pretermitted heir is not provided for, the pretermitted heir receives a share from the spouse’s portion. The statute clarifies that the share of the pretermitted heir is to be taken ratably from the property passing under the will to the beneficiaries other than a surviving spouse. If the will does not provide for a surviving spouse, the pretermitted heir receives a share of the entire estate. If the will does provide for a surviving spouse, the pretermitted heir receives a share from the property that would have passed to other beneficiaries. In this specific scenario, the will leaves the entire estate to a spouse. A child is born after the will’s execution and is not mentioned. The pretermitted heir statute applies. The child is entitled to a share as if the testator died intestate. Under Nebraska’s intestacy laws, if a decedent is survived by a spouse and one child, the spouse receives the first \$50,000 of the estate, plus one-half of the remaining estate, and the child receives the other half of the remaining estate. Therefore, if the net estate is \$400,000, the spouse would receive \$50,000 + ((\$400,000 – \$50,000) / 2) = \$50,000 + \$175,000 = \$225,000. The child would receive the remaining \$175,000. This \$175,000 is the share the pretermitted heir is entitled to from the estate, which would be taken ratably from the property passing to the beneficiaries under the will. Since the entire estate passes to the spouse under the will, the spouse’s inheritance is reduced by the pretermitted heir’s share. Thus, the pretermitted heir receives \$175,000.

In Nebraska, a holographic will is a will written entirely in the testator’s handwriting and signed by the testator. Unlike attested wills, holographic wills do not require witnesses. Nebraska Revised Statutes Section 30-2326 explicitly states that a will which does not accompany or not entirely written in the handwriting of the testator is not valid unless it is signed by at least two individuals. This means that even if a portion of the will is in the testator’s handwriting, if it is not entirely handwritten and signed by the testator, it must still meet the requirements for an attested will, which include attestation by two witnesses. Therefore, a will that is partially handwritten by the testator but also contains typed portions, and is not witnessed, is not valid under Nebraska law. The scenario describes a will that is partially handwritten and partially typed, with no mention of witnesses. This fails the requirements for both a holographic will (must be entirely in the testator’s handwriting) and an attested will (requires witnesses).

The scenario involves the interpretation of a residuary clause in a Nebraska will. Nebraska Revised Statute § 30-2336 addresses the lapse of a devise or legacy. If a beneficiary in a will dies before the testator, and the beneficiary is not a descendant of the testator or a brother or sister of the testator, the devise or legacy lapses, unless an alternative beneficiary is named. In this case, the testator, Elara, bequeathed her residuary estate to her cousin, Silas, who predeceased her. Silas was not a descendant of Elara, nor was he a brother or sister. Elara’s will does not name an alternative beneficiary for the residuary estate. Therefore, the residuary estate does not pass to Silas’s heirs. Instead, according to Nebraska law, the lapsed residuary devise will pass as intestate property. Intestate property is distributed according to the Nebraska statutes governing intestacy. In Nebraska, if a decedent dies without a spouse or descendants, the property passes to the decedent’s parents. If both parents are deceased, it passes to the parents’ descendants. In this case, Elara’s parents are both deceased, and their descendants would be Elara’s siblings and their descendants, and her aunts and uncles and their descendants. Since Silas was Elara’s cousin, he is a descendant of one of Elara’s aunts or uncles. However, the lapsed residuary devise passes to the next of kin in equal degree. Elara’s closest living relatives, after her parents and siblings (if any), would be her nieces and nephews, and then her aunts and uncles. Since Silas was a cousin, he is in the same degree of kinship as Elara’s nieces and nephews, or potentially a degree further removed depending on the specific familial relationship. The correct interpretation is that the lapsed residuary estate passes as intestate property, and distribution is determined by Nebraska’s intestacy laws. This means it would pass to Elara’s next of kin in equal degree.

In Nebraska, the Uniform Disclaimer of Transfers Under Nontestamentary Instruments Act, codified in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2352 et seq., governs the disclaimer of interests in property passing by means other than a will. For a disclaimer to be effective, it must be in writing, describe the interest being disclaimed with reasonable specificity, be signed by the disclaimant or their representative, and be delivered to the transferor or their representative, or the holder of legal title to the property, or the person designated to receive the disclaimer. Crucially, the disclaimer must be delivered no later than nine months after the later of the date of the transfer or the date the disclaimant attains age twenty-one. If the disclaimant or their representative exercises dominion over the property or any interest in the property, that action constitutes an acceptance and renders the disclaimer ineffective. In this scenario, Mr. Abernathy’s actions of collecting rent and paying property taxes on the inherited farm clearly demonstrate an exercise of dominion and control over the property. These actions are considered an acceptance of the inheritance, thus precluding him from effectively disclaiming his interest in the farm under Nebraska law. The statutory framework prioritizes clear and unequivocal acts of acceptance or rejection, and his conduct falls squarely into the former category.

In Nebraska, the concept of a “will substitute” allows for the transfer of assets outside of the traditional probate process, often to avoid its complexities and potential delays. One such mechanism is the payable-on-death (POD) designation for bank accounts or the transfer-on-death (TOD) designation for securities. These designations, when properly executed according to Nebraska Revised Statutes § 30-2701 et seq. for TOD securities and § 30-2713 et seq. for POD accounts, direct the disposition of the asset upon the owner’s death to a named beneficiary. Importantly, these designations are generally considered revocable by the account holder during their lifetime and do not require the formal execution formalities of a will, such as attestation by witnesses, to be effective for the transfer of the designated asset. While a will can generally revoke or amend provisions made through POD/TOD designations, the effectiveness of the POD/TOD designation for the specific asset is governed by the statutes pertaining to those designations, not the general will execution requirements. Therefore, a POD designation on a bank account in Nebraska is a valid will substitute for that specific asset, provided it was properly established.

The Uniform Trust Code, adopted in Nebraska, addresses the issue of a trustee’s duty to keep beneficiaries reasonably informed about the trust’s administration. Specifically, Nebraska Revised Statute § 30-3876 outlines the trustee’s obligations. This statute requires a trustee to keep the qualified beneficiaries of the trust reasonably informed about the trust’s administration and the material facts necessary for them to protect their interests. This includes providing beneficiaries with a copy of the trust instrument, a statement of accounts showing trust property, liabilities, receipts, and disbursements, and any other information that the beneficiaries need to enforce their rights. The statute also specifies when this information must be provided: at least annually, upon termination of the trust, and upon a beneficiary’s request. The explanation of a trustee’s duty to inform is crucial for ensuring transparency and accountability in trust management, allowing beneficiaries to monitor the trustee’s actions and ensure the trust is being administered according to its terms and the law. The question focuses on the *timing* of the trustee’s obligation to provide a statement of accounts when a beneficiary makes a request, not an annual distribution or termination. Nebraska law requires a trustee to provide a statement of accounts upon reasonable request, and this information is critical for beneficiaries to understand the trust’s financial status and their entitlements. The question is designed to test the understanding of this specific trigger for disclosure beyond the annual requirement.

The Uniform Trust Code, as adopted in Nebraska (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-3801 et seq.), governs the interpretation and administration of trusts. When a trust instrument is silent on the issue of a trustee’s compensation, the law provides a framework for determining reasonable compensation. Nebraska law, specifically Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-3877, states that a trustee is entitled to reasonable compensation. What constitutes “reasonable” compensation is a question of fact, often determined by considering factors such as the size of the trust estate, the complexity of the trust’s administration, the trustee’s skill and experience, the time and effort expended by the trustee, and the fees ordinarily charged for similar services in the community. The statute does not mandate a specific percentage or hourly rate, but rather a flexible standard. In the absence of a specific provision in the trust document, a trustee would petition the court for approval of compensation if an agreement cannot be reached with the beneficiaries, or if the beneficiaries dispute the proposed amount. The court would then apply the statutory factors to determine what is reasonable under the circumstances. Therefore, a trustee’s entitlement to compensation when the trust is silent is a statutory right, subject to the court’s determination of reasonableness based on established factors.

Nebraska law, specifically under the Nebraska Probate Code, addresses the abatement of legacies when the estate’s assets are insufficient to satisfy all bequests. Abatement is the process by which beneficiaries’ shares are reduced when an estate lacks sufficient funds to pay all debts, expenses, and legacies. The order of abatement is crucial. Generally, specific bequests of real or personal property abate before general bequests. Among general bequests, those that are pecuniary (a specific sum of money) are often abated before those that are demonstrative (a general bequest to be paid from a specific source). Residuary beneficiaries abate first, followed by general beneficiaries, and finally specific beneficiaries. Within each class, abatement is typically proportional. In this scenario, the estate has a net value of $500,000 after debts and expenses. The total value of all bequests is $600,000 ($200,000 general pecuniary + $150,000 general demonstrative + $250,000 specific devise). The shortfall is $100,000 ($600,000 – $500,000). Following the typical abatement order in Nebraska, the residuary estate would abate first. Since there is no residuary estate mentioned, we proceed to general bequests. General bequests abate before specific bequests. The general pecuniary bequest is $200,000, and the general demonstrative bequest is $150,000, totaling $350,000 in general bequests. The specific devise is $250,000. The entire $100,000 shortfall must be absorbed by the general bequests. These general bequests will abate proportionally. The total value of general bequests is $350,000. The abatement amount is $100,000. Therefore, each dollar of general bequest will be reduced by \(\frac{\$100,000}{\$350,000} \approx 0.2857\). The general pecuniary bequest of $200,000 will be reduced by \(0.2857 \times \$200,000 = \$57,140\), leaving it at $142,860. The general demonstrative bequest of $150,000 will be reduced by \(0.2857 \times \$150,000 = \$42,855\), leaving it at $107,145. The total abated amount is $57,140 + $42,855 = $99,995, with a minor rounding difference. The specific devise of $250,000 remains unaffected as the general bequests are insufficient to cover the shortfall. The total distributed amount is $142,860 + $107,145 + $250,000 = $500,001, which aligns with the net estate value.

The Uniform Trust Code, adopted in Nebraska, provides a framework for trust administration. When a trustee resigns or is removed, the process for appointing a successor trustee is governed by the trust instrument itself and, if the instrument is silent or fails to provide a method, by statutory provisions. Nebraska Revised Statute § 30-3841 outlines the procedure for appointing a successor trustee. If the trust instrument designates a person to appoint a successor, that person should make the appointment. If no such person is designated, or if the designated person fails to act, the statute allows for appointment by a majority of the qualified beneficiaries who are of legal age and capacity. If neither of these methods yields an appointment, or if the beneficiaries cannot agree, the statute permits any interested person to petition the court for the appointment of a successor trustee. The court will then appoint a trustee that it deems suitable. In this scenario, the trust instrument is silent on the method of appointing a successor. The qualified beneficiaries are all adults and competent. Therefore, the qualified beneficiaries have the authority to appoint a successor trustee by majority vote.

The Uniform Disclaimer of Property Interests Act, adopted in Nebraska (Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 30-3601 to 30-3615), governs disclaimers of property interests. A disclaimer is generally effective if it is in writing, signed, acknowledged, and delivered to the transferor or their representative within nine months after the later of the date of the creation of the interest or the date the disclaimant attains age 21. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-3604. The disclaimer must identify the creator of the interest, describe the interest being disclaimed, and declare the extent of the disclaimer. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-3604(1)(c). Delivery is typically accomplished by filing the disclaimer with the court having jurisdiction of the property, or if none, with the transferor or their representative. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-3606. In this scenario, the disclaimer was made in writing, signed by Elara, and acknowledged. It clearly identified the deceased grantor, the specific parcel of land in Sarpy County, Nebraska, and the extent of her renunciation. The disclaimer was delivered to the personal representative of the grantor’s estate within the statutory nine-month period following the grantor’s death, which is the relevant date for the creation of the interest for an intestate succession. Therefore, the disclaimer is valid and Elara is deemed to have predeceased the grantor for purposes of intestate succession of that specific property.

In Nebraska, the Uniform Principal and Income Act (UPIA), as adopted and modified by state law, governs the allocation of receipts and expenses between income beneficiaries and remainder beneficiaries of a trust. For a business or entity in which a trust has an interest, the UPIA generally presumes that a net income of \(6%\) of the average market value of the entity’s assets during the accounting period is income, and the rest is principal. However, this presumption can be rebutted if the trustee determines that the allocation is unreasonable or that the entity’s accounting practices are inconsistent with the UPIA. Specifically, Nebraska Revised Statute §30-3106 provides that if a trustee holds an interest in a business or entity that the trustee is unable to determine the extent to which its net cash receipts must be allocated to income or principal by applying the terms of the document, the trustee shall determine the extent to which and so allocate net cash receipts and disbursements. The statute further states that if the trustee cannot determine the extent to which net cash receipts must be allocated to income or principal by applying the terms of the document, the trustee shall determine the extent to which and so allocate net cash receipts and disbursements. Under the UPIA, a trustee may make an adjustment between principal and income to correct an inequity in the allocation of an adjustment between income and principal that arises from the application of Nebraska Revised Statute §30-3106, or from the terms of the document, or from the failure of the document to describe the manner of allocation of a receipt or disbursement if the trustee determines that the adjustment will do more to impartialy balance the interest of income beneficiaries and remainder beneficiaries. However, the statute requires that a trustee may make an adjustment only if the adjustment would benefit the income beneficiary and the remainder beneficiary. The trustee must also consider the nature and purpose of the particular receipt or disbursement, the effect of the trustee’s decision on other persons interested in the estate or trust, and any other factors the trustee considers relevant. The adjustment must be made within a reasonable time after the end of the accounting period. In this scenario, the trustee’s decision to allocate all undistributed net income to principal is a discretionary act based on the trustee’s determination that the business’s retained earnings were reinvested for growth, which is a principal purpose. The trustee has the power to make this allocation under the UPIA, provided it is done impartially and with consideration for the relevant factors. The statute specifically allows for adjustments to balance the interests of income and remainder beneficiaries. The trustee’s determination that the reinvestment of earnings serves the long-term growth of the business, thereby benefiting the corpus for the remainder beneficiaries, is a valid exercise of discretion under the UPIA. The question is about the trustee’s ability to make this specific allocation, not about whether it was the most beneficial choice for the income beneficiary, but rather if it was a permissible allocation.

In Nebraska, the doctrine of equitable conversion dictates that when a contract for the sale of real property is executed, the vendor’s interest in the land is converted into personal property (the right to receive the purchase price), and the vendee’s interest in the land is converted into real property (the right to acquire the land upon payment). This conversion occurs at the moment the contract becomes binding. Therefore, if a vendor dies after entering into a binding contract for the sale of land but before the closing, their interest in the property is treated as personalty for the purposes of their estate. This means the proceeds from the sale, rather than the land itself, will pass according to the terms of their will or the laws of intestacy as personal property. Conversely, if the vendee dies before closing, their equitable interest in the land is treated as real property and will pass to their heirs or beneficiaries as real estate. This principle is crucial for determining how property is distributed when a party to a real estate contract dies during the executory period of the contract. The Uniform Commercial Code, particularly regarding the sale of goods, has some analogous principles, but equitable conversion is a distinct doctrine applied to real estate transactions in common law jurisdictions like Nebraska.

The Nebraska Probate Code, specifically under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2332, addresses the elective share of a surviving spouse. This statute allows a surviving spouse to elect to take a share of the decedent’s augmented estate, rather than accepting the provisions made for them in the will. The augmented estate is designed to prevent a testator from disinheriting a spouse by transferring assets outside of the will. Nebraska’s elective share is a fractional amount of the augmented estate, which is calculated based on the length of the marriage. For marriages of 15 years or more, the elective share is one-half of the augmented estate. For marriages of less than 15 years, the share is a smaller fraction, increasing by 3.33% for each full year of marriage beyond 5 years, up to the maximum of 50% at 15 years. In this scenario, the marriage lasted 18 years, exceeding the 15-year threshold. Therefore, the surviving spouse is entitled to one-half of the augmented estate. The augmented estate is defined by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2301 and includes the decedent’s net probate estate, plus certain non-probate transfers and gifts made by the decedent during the marriage. Assuming the augmented estate is calculated to be $1,200,000, one-half of this amount is $600,000. This calculation reflects the statutory entitlement of a surviving spouse in Nebraska after a long-term marriage when electing against the will.

In Nebraska, the Uniform Trust Code, as adopted and modified by state law, governs the administration of trusts. Specifically, when a trustee is removed or resigns, and no successor trustee is named or available, the court has the authority to appoint a successor trustee. Nebraska Revised Statute § 30-3881 outlines the procedure for court appointment of a successor trustee. The statute prioritizes certain individuals or entities for appointment, such as a person nominated in the trust instrument, a co-trustee, or a qualified trust company. If no such person is available or suitable, the court will appoint a competent person or entity. The statute also requires notice to qualified beneficiaries and other interested parties before such an appointment is finalized. The question revolves around the statutory framework for filling a vacancy in a trust where the trust instrument is silent on succession. The core principle is ensuring the trust continues to be administered according to its terms, necessitating the appointment of a qualified successor. The process involves identifying the vacancy, determining if the trust instrument provides a mechanism for filling it, and if not, seeking court intervention. The court’s role is to appoint a successor who can fulfill the fiduciary duties required by the trust.

In Nebraska, when a testator executes a will that is later found to be invalid, and there is no prior valid will, the estate will pass through intestacy according to Nebraska Revised Statutes Chapter 30, Article 2. Intestacy statutes dictate the distribution of an estate when a person dies without a valid will. These statutes prioritize distribution to the closest relatives. Typically, this begins with the surviving spouse and children. If there is no surviving spouse and no children, the estate would pass to parents, then siblings, and so on, down the line of kinship. The concept of “escheat” to the state of Nebraska is the ultimate fallback, occurring only when no identifiable heirs can be found according to the statutory hierarchy. Therefore, the absence of a valid will does not mean the property is confiscated by the state if any legal heirs exist. The question implies a scenario where a will is declared void, and no prior valid will exists, leading to the application of intestacy laws.

In Nebraska, the Uniform Probate Code (UPC), as adopted and modified, governs intestacy. Specifically, Nebraska Revised Statute § 30-2303 outlines the distribution of an estate when a decedent dies intestate and is survived by a spouse and descendants. If the surviving spouse receives the entire intestate estate under § 30-2303, this occurs when the decedent has no surviving issue or when all of the decedent’s surviving issue are also issue of the surviving spouse and the surviving spouse has no other surviving issue who are not issue of the decedent. In this scenario, the surviving spouse inherits the first \$50,000 of the intestate estate plus one-half of the remaining estate. If the decedent’s surviving issue are all issue of the surviving spouse, and the surviving spouse has no other surviving issue, then the surviving spouse receives the entire estate. The calculation for this specific distribution scenario involves determining the value of the intestate estate and applying the statutory formula. For instance, if an intestate estate in Nebraska is valued at \$250,000 and the decedent is survived by a spouse and one child, who is also the child of the surviving spouse, the spouse receives \$50,000 plus one-half of the remaining \$200,000. This amounts to \$50,000 + \$100,000 = \$150,000. The remaining \$100,000 goes to the child. If, however, the decedent is survived by a spouse and a child from a previous marriage, and the spouse has no other issue, the spouse receives \$50,000 plus one-half of the remaining estate, and the child receives the other one-half. In the case where the decedent is survived by a spouse and descendants, and all of the decedent’s surviving issue are also issue of the surviving spouse, and the surviving spouse has no other surviving issue who are not issue of the decedent, the spouse inherits the entire intestate estate. This specific condition is met when the surviving spouse is the sole parent of all the decedent’s surviving children, and the spouse has no children from another relationship.

In Nebraska, the Uniform Principal and Income Act (UPIA), as adopted and modified by Nebraska Revised Statutes § 30-3101 et seq., governs the allocation of receipts and expenses between income beneficiaries and remainder beneficiaries of a trust. Specifically, § 30-3107 addresses the allocation of income from a business or activity in which the fiduciary has a controlling interest. When a fiduciary operates a business that is a sole proprietorship or a partnership, and the fiduciary has control, the net profits of the business are generally allocated to income. However, if the business is a corporation, then dividends paid by the corporation are allocated to income, while retained earnings are not. In this scenario, the trustee is operating a sole proprietorship, “Prairie Goods,” in Nebraska. The net profit of this sole proprietorship for the year was \( \$50,000 \). Under the Nebraska UPIA, net profits from a business operated as a sole proprietorship by the trustee are to be allocated to income. Therefore, the entire \( \$50,000 \) is income. The question asks how the net profit of the sole proprietorship should be allocated. The correct allocation is to income.

In Nebraska, when a testator executes a will, the testator must sign the will in the presence of two witnesses. These witnesses must also sign the will in the presence of the testator and each other. This is known as the attestation requirement. The purpose of these requirements is to prevent fraud and undue influence, ensuring that the will genuinely reflects the testator’s wishes. If a will is not properly attested, it may be deemed invalid. In this scenario, the will was signed by the testator and one witness. The second witness signed the will, but not in the presence of the testator or the first witness. This failure to comply with the mutual presence requirement for both witnesses and the testator renders the will invalid in Nebraska. Nebraska Revised Statutes § 30-2327 outlines the requirements for execution of a will, specifying that the will must be signed by the testator and by at least two other individuals each signing as a witness to the testator’s signature. Crucially, the statute implies, and case law has interpreted, that this witnessing must occur in the presence of the testator. While Nebraska law does not have a specific “self-proving affidavit” provision that bypasses the need for witness testimony at probate in all cases, the fundamental execution requirements are paramount. The absence of the second witness’s signature in the presence of the testator and the other witness is a fatal flaw to the will’s validity.

The Uniform Voidable Transactions Act, adopted in Nebraska (Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 36-701 to 36-713), provides remedies for creditors when a debtor transfers assets in a way that defrauds or hinders them. A transfer is considered fraudulent if made with the actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors, or if it is a constructively fraudulent transfer. A constructively fraudulent transfer occurs when the debtor receives less than reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer, and the debtor was insolvent at the time or became insolvent as a result of the transfer. In this scenario, Beatrice transferred her farmland to her son, Reginald, for a price significantly below its market value. The question implies Beatrice’s intent to shield the asset from potential future claims by her creditors, particularly given her precarious financial situation. Even without direct evidence of actual intent to defraud, the transfer can be deemed constructively fraudulent under Nebraska law if Beatrice did not receive reasonably equivalent value and was either insolvent at the time of the transfer or became insolvent as a result. The court would examine the circumstances surrounding the transfer, including the consideration exchanged, Beatrice’s financial condition before and after the transfer, and any other indicia of intent. If the transfer is found to be fraudulent, creditors can seek remedies such as avoidance of the transfer, attachment of the asset, or an injunction against further disposition of the asset. The value of the asset transferred, \( \$500,000 \), and the consideration received, \( \$50,000 \), are crucial in determining if reasonably equivalent value was exchanged. The difference, \( \$450,000 \), represents the potential value that could be recovered by creditors if the transfer is voided.

The scenario involves the doctrine of ademption by extinction, which applies when a specifically devised asset is no longer in the testator’s estate at the time of death. In Nebraska, as in many jurisdictions, the intent of the testator is paramount in determining whether ademption occurs. Nebraska Revised Statute §30-2346 addresses changes to specifically devised or bequeathed property. If property that is the subject of a specific devise or bequest is sold or otherwise disposed of by the testator, the devise or bequest fails. However, if the testator is incompetent and the property is sold by a guardian or conservator, the specific devise or bequest passes to the beneficiary with the same character it would have had if the testator had sold it, unless the will expresses a contrary intention or the testator’s conservator is authorized to make a gift to the beneficiary. In this case, the specific devise of the antique writing desk to Elara is affected by its sale. Since the sale was conducted by the testator’s duly appointed conservator while the testator was legally incompetent, and there is no indication in the will that the conservator was authorized to make a gift of the desk to Elara, or that the testator intended for the devise to fail if the desk was sold by a conservator, the devise does not adeem by extinction. Instead, Elara is entitled to the proceeds of the sale of the desk. This is because the statute effectively substitutes the proceeds for the original property when the sale is by a conservator due to the testator’s incompetence. The rationale is that the testator, being incompetent, did not have the opportunity to change their will to reflect the sale of the specific asset. Therefore, the beneficiary receives what the testator would have received had they sold it themselves.

The Uniform Trust Code, adopted in Nebraska, addresses the issue of a trustee’s duty to inform and report to beneficiaries. Specifically, Nebraska Revised Statute § 30-3876 outlines these duties. Upon reasonable request, a trustee must provide beneficiaries with a report on the trust property, liabilities, receipts, disbursements, and other information necessary to enforce their rights. The statute also mandates that the trustee must keep beneficiaries reasonably informed of the trust and its administration. This includes informing qualified beneficiaries of the existence of the trust, the trustee’s name and contact information, and their right to request a copy of the trust instrument. Furthermore, the statute specifies that a trustee shall provide a trust accounting to qualified beneficiaries at least annually, or more frequently if the trust instrument requires or if a qualified beneficiary requests it. A qualified beneficiary is defined as a beneficiary whose interest is subject to the trustee’s discretion, or who is a permissible appointee of a power of appointment held by the trustee. In this scenario, Ms. Albright is a qualified beneficiary because she is a beneficiary of the trust and her interest is subject to the trustee’s discretion. Therefore, she has the right to request and receive an accounting. The failure to provide such an accounting upon request, absent any specific trust provision to the contrary or a waiver by the beneficiary, constitutes a breach of the trustee’s fiduciary duty under Nebraska law.

In Nebraska, the concept of a “pretermitted heir” is governed by statutes designed to protect children or spouses who are unintentionally omitted from a will. Under Nebraska Revised Statute §30-2302, a person born or adopted after the execution of a will who is not named or provided for in the will is entitled to a share of the estate. This share is typically what the omitted heir would have received if the testator had died intestate (without a will), distributed from the portion of the estate not passing to a surviving spouse or to a parent of the testator’s predeceased child who is entitled to the child’s share. However, this protection does not extend to a child who was provided for by some settlement during the testator’s lifetime or by an advancement. Furthermore, if it appears from the will that the omission was intentional and not occasioned by mistake or accident, the pretermitted heir will not receive a share. The statute also addresses situations where the testator had other living children when the will was executed and did not provide for them, which can be evidence of an intentional omission. The distribution is from the residuary estate, and if that is insufficient, then from other property of the testator. The key is whether the omission was intentional or accidental. In this scenario, the will explicitly states that no provision is made for any after-born children, indicating a clear intent to disinherit any such future offspring. This explicit statement negates the presumption of mistake or accident that would otherwise entitle an omitted heir to a share. Therefore, the after-born child, despite not being named, is not entitled to a share of the estate under Nebraska law due to the testator’s expressed intent.

In Nebraska, the concept of an “interested witness” to a will is governed by Nebraska Revised Statutes §30-2327. This statute addresses the validity of a will when a beneficiary is also a witness. Generally, a will is not invalidated solely because an interested witness attests to its execution. However, the statute creates a presumption that the bequest to the interested witness is void. This presumption can be rebutted if the interested witness can provide credible testimony that the testator did not intend to give the witness the beneficial interest. If the interested witness cannot overcome this presumption, the gift to them fails, and the property passes as if they had predeceased the testator, meaning it would go to the residuary beneficiaries or via intestacy. The statute aims to prevent undue influence or fraud by individuals who stand to gain from the will. The key is the rebuttable presumption and the opportunity for the interested witness to prove their lack of undue influence.

Nebraska Revised Statutes Section 30-2326 addresses the renunciation of an interest in property. Renunciation must be in writing, signed by the renouncer, and delivered to the transferor of the interest or their representative. The statute specifies that the writing must describe the interest renounced and declare the extent of the renunciation. Delivery must occur within nine months after the interest devolves, or within nine months after the renouncer attains twenty-one years of age if the interest devolves to a minor. In this scenario, Elara is renouncing her interest in the trust established by her grandmother. The trust interest devolves upon her grandmother’s death. Elara’s renunciation is in writing, signed by her, and describes the trust interest. The critical factor is the timing of delivery. If Elara delivers the written renunciation to the trustee (the transferor’s representative) within nine months of her grandmother’s death, her renunciation is effective. If she delivers it more than nine months after the devolution date, it is generally ineffective unless specific exceptions apply, which are not indicated here. Therefore, the timely delivery to the trustee is paramount for the validity of the renunciation under Nebraska law.