S-20-0093, S-20-0094 In re Estate of Charles E. Lakin, deceased. In re Trust of Charles E. Lakin Foundation, Inc., Interested Party (Appellant) v. Thomas L. Pribil and William A. Kilzer, Individually and as Personal Representatives of the Estate of Charles E. Lakin and Cotrustees of the Charles E. Lakin Revocable Trust UTA dated January 27, 2003
Douglas County Court, Hon. Stephanie Shearer
Attorneys: William J. Lindsay, Frederick D. Stehlik, John A. Svoboda & Zachary W. Lutz-Priefert (Gross & Welch, PC, LLO for Charles E. Lakin Foundation, Inc.) — Trenten P. Bausch & Megan S. Wright (Cline Williams Wright Johnson & Oldfather, LLP, Attorneys for Thomas Pribil); Brian J. Brislen & Cathy S. Trent-Vilim (Lamson Dugan & Murray, LLP, Attorneys for William Kilzer); Edward D. Hotz, Amanda M. Forker & Benjamin C. Deaver (Pansing Hogan Ernst & Bachman, LLP, Attorneys for Copersonal Representatives and Cotrustees)
Probate: Informal probate of will; Petition for removal of and surcharge of personal representatives
Proceedings Below: Upon cross-motions for summary judgment, the court sustained the motions on behalf of Thomas Pribil and William Kilzer, in both their individual and representative capacities.
Issues on Appeal: Consolidated, the Foundation (Appellant) assigns that the court erred in 1) finding that a promissory note was a deferred compensation agreement; 2) concluding that Pribil and Kilzer in their capacities as copersonal representatives and as cotrustees were allowed to pay the note; 3) concluding that Pribil and Kilzer did not breach their fiduciary duties to the estate or to the Trust and its beneficiaries; 4) finding that the note was not barred by the statute of limitations; 4) failing to enforce a county court rule which required Pribil to receive court approval for payment to himself in excess of $250; 5) finding that Pribil was not required to file a claim with the estate; 6) concluding that Pribil had not made a judicial admission concerning his status as a creditor; 7) concluding that proper procedures had been followed for the alleged debt owed to Pribil by decedent to be paid from the Trust; 8) concluding that Pribil and Kilzer were allowed to rely upon advice of professionals to immunize their malfeasance; 9) failing to remove Pribil and Kilzer and appoint successor personal representative and trustees; and 10) finding that the note could be amended.