In re Estate of Foged

Case Number(s)
A-24-0269
Court Number
Sarpy
Call Date
Case Time
Case Audio
Case Summary

A-24-269, In re Estate of Foged: Loren Foged, Personal Representative (Appellee) v. Stephanie M. Knapp (Appellant)

Sarpy County, County Court, Judge S. Colin Palm

Attorneys for Appellant: Sarah D. Duey and Anthony T. Baudler (Smith Pauley LLP)

Attorneys for Appellee: Matthew S. McKeever and Layf J. Carlson (Burnett Legal Group, LLP)

Civil Action: Interpretation of Will, Statutory Interpretation, Procedure

Action Taken by Trial Court: Stephanie Knapp was the sole beneficiary of her deceased father’s estate. The decedent’s will directed that all property “of every kind and nature and wherever situated” would go to Knapp if she was at least 35 years old at the time of her father’s death. If she was under 35, the property was directed to be held in trust, with half distributed to her at age 30 and the remainder at 35. Loren Foged, the decedent’s brother, was appointed as the personal representative of the estate and trustee of the trust.

Knapp, who was 33 years old at the time of her father’s death, filed a petition for an in-kind distribution of specific estate assets. At some point prior to the petition, the parties entered into a stipulation stating that the personal representative “shall give good faith consideration to [requests for in-kind distributions]” and that “such decisions shall be at [his] discretion.” The county court denied Knapp’s petition for an in-kind distribution, holding that the will contained a contrary intention under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-24,104 (Reissue 2016) and that its ruling was consistent with the parties’ stipulation.

Assignments of Error on Appeal: Knapp assigns that the county court erred in (1) adopting the July 11, 2023, stipulated order as it gives the personal representative ultimate discretion over in-kind distributions inconsistent with § 30-24,104; (2) relying on the stipulated order in denying her petition for an in-kind distribution; (3) finding that the will of the decedent indicated a contrary intention due to the will providing for a discretionary power to sell; and (4) refusing to grant an in-kind distribution even if the will contains a contrary intention.

Case Location
Papillion
Court Type
County Court
Schedule Code
A1
Panel Text
Riedmann, Chief Judge, Bishop and Arterburn, Judges