Nebraska Advance Sheets

222 288 NEBRASKA REPORTS

In re Estate of Jack H. Gsantner, deceased.

Ryan Gray, Personal Representative of the Estate

of Jack H. Gsantner, deceased, appellant, v. 

Kevin J. Gustafson et al., appellees.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed May 23, 2014. No. S-13-633.

1. Judgments: Jurisdiction. Jurisdictional questions that do not involve a factual 

dispute present questions of law.

2. Decedents’ Estates: Appeal and Error. Appeals of matters arising under the 

Nebraska Probate Code are reviewed for error on the record.

3. Judgments: Appeal and Error. When reviewing a judgment for errors appearing 

on the record, an appellate court’s inquiry is whether the decision conforms to 

the law, is supported by competent evidence, and is neither arbitrary, capricious, 

nor unreasonable.

4. Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. Before reaching the legal issues presented for 

review, it is the duty of an appellate court to determine whether it has jurisdiction 

over the matter before it.

5. Jurisdiction: Final Orders: Appeal and Error. For an appellate court to acquire 

jurisdiction of an appeal, there must be a final order entered by the court from 

which the appeal is taken; conversely, an appellate court is without jurisdiction to 

entertain appeals from nonfinal orders.

6. Final Orders: Appeal and Error. Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1902 (Reissue 

2008), the three types of final orders that an appellate court may review are (1) an 

order that affects a substantial right and that determines the action and prevents 

a judgment, (2) an order that affects a substantial right made during a special 

proceeding, and (3) an order that affects a substantial right made on summary 

application in an action after a judgment is rendered.

7. Decedents’ Estates. A proceeding under the Nebraska Probate Code is a special proceeding.

8. Final Orders: Words and Phrases. A substantial right under Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§ 25-1902 (Reissue 2008) is an essential legal right.

9. Final Orders: Appeal and Error. A substantial right is involved if an order 

affects the subject matter of the litigation, such as diminishing a claim or 

defense that was available to an appellant before the order from which an appeal 

is taken.

10. Final Orders. Substantial rights under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1902 (Reissue 2008) 

include those legal rights that a party is entitled to enforce or defend.

11. Decedents’ Estates: Appeal and Error. In reviewing the judgment awarded by 

the probate court in 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, who is entitled to 

every reasonable inference deducible from the evidence.
Nebraska Advance Sheets

IN RE ESTATE OF GSANTNER 223

Cite as 288 Neb. 222

Appeal from the County Court for Douglas County: 

Lawrence E. Barrett, Judge. Affirmed.

Andrew C. Sigerson and Lyndsay N. Bonwell, of Andrew C. 

Sigerson, P.C., L.L.O., for appellant.

Dean F. Suing and David A. Castello, of Katskee, Henatsch 

& Suing, for appellees.

Heavican, C.J., Wright, Connolly, Stephan, McCormack, 

Miller-Lerman, and Cassel, JJ.

Wright, J.

NATURE OF CASE

Ryan Gray, personal representative of the estate of Jack H. 

Gsantner, appeals from the orders of the county court awarding him a fee of $25,000 and overruling his motion to alter or 

amend the award. Finding no error on the record, we affirm the 

award of a personal representative fee of $25,000.

SCOPE OF REVIEW

[1] Jurisdictional questions that do not involve a factual 

dispute present questions of law. Pinnacle Enters. v. City of 

Papillion, 286 Neb. 322, 836 N.W.2d 588 (2013).

[2,3] Appeals of matters arising under the Nebraska Probate 

Code are reviewed for error on the record. See In re Estate of 

Failla, 278 Neb. 770, 773 N.W.2d 793 (2009). When reviewing a judgment for errors appearing on the record, an appellate 

court’s inquiry is whether the decision conforms to the law, 

is supported by competent evidence, and is neither arbitrary, 

capricious, nor unreasonable. Krings v. Garfield Cty. Bd. of 

Equal., 286 Neb. 352, 835 N.W.2d 750 (2013).

FACTS

Gsantner died in February 2012. He was survived by neither 

a spouse nor children. His funeral services were provided by 

an Omaha, Nebraska, mortuary, of which Gray is the managing officer. Several months after the funeral, the estate owed 

$3,120.55 in funeral expenses.
Nebraska Advance Sheets

224 288 NEBRASKA REPORTS

As a creditor of Gsantner’s estate, the mortuary sought 

appointment of Gray as personal representative in intestacy. 

In April 2012, he was informally appointed to serve in that 

capacity. In November, the county court entered an order of 

intestacy and formally appointed Gray as personal representative of the estate.

At the time of Gray’s informal appointment, the value of 

the estate was estimated to be $127,400. Following Gray’s 

informal appointment, he discovered the estate had extensive 

assets that were previously unknown to him. Gray also learned 

that Gsantner had executed a will. The final value of the estate 

was $5,180,514.23.

In December 2012, Gray filed a petition for formal probate 

of the will, determination of heirs, tentative determination of 

the inheritance tax, partial distribution of the estate, and payment of attorney fees and the personal representative fee. He 

submitted a request for fees in the amount of 5 percent of the 

gross estate, to be distributed equally between attorney fees 

and the personal representative fee. Five heirs of the estate 

(appellees) objected to Gray’s request for fees as “excessive 

and unwarranted” under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2480 (Reissue 

2008). At appellees’ request, the county court scheduled an 

evidentiary hearing to determine reasonable fees.

After the evidentiary hearing was scheduled but before it 

took place, appellees recommended a partial award of the personal representative fee in the amount of $17,500, “without 

prejudice” to the county court’s final determination regarding 

the fee. The court granted appellees’ request and awarded Gray 

a “partial fee” of $17,500. 

At the evidentiary hearing, Gray and appellees adduced 

evidence to support a wide range of personal representative 

fees. The county court ultimately received all the exhibits 

into evidence.

In support of Gray’s request for a personal representative fee 

in the amount of 21⁄2 percent of the estate, Gray offered affidavits from five attorneys with experience in probate matters. 

These attorneys commented on (1) the size and complexity of 

Gsantner’s estate, (2) the amount of work Gray had expended 

on his duties as personal representative (over 400 hours), 
Nebraska Advance Sheets

IN RE ESTATE OF GSANTNER 225

Cite as 288 Neb. 222

(3) the opportunity costs Gray had forgone in his regular 

employment while serving as personal representative, and (4) 

the quality and skill of Gray’s work. Based on these facts, the 

various attorneys stated that a reasonable fee for Gray would 

range between 1 and 3 percent of the estate or between $150 

and $225 per hour.

One of the affidavits submitted by Gray was from Thomas 

B. Thomsen, the attorney representing Gsantner’s estate. 

Thomsen opined that Gray’s performance was comparable to 

that of “any large bank trust department” and “any attorney 

[Thomsen had] ever worked with as personal representative” 

and that Gray “earned the maximum fee to be paid to a personal representative under Nebraska law.” Another one of the 

attorneys providing an affidavit in support of Gray’s position stated that Gray’s “standard of work and detail in this 

estate approache[d] the level of professional fiduciary services 

and . . . merit[ed] fees approaching the level of a professional fiduciary.”

Appellees offered the affidavit of a sixth Nebraska attorney, 

who opined, based on his experience, that a personal representative fee constituting 21

⁄2 percent of the gross estate was 

“excessive” and “would not be reasonable compensation as 

contemplated by Neb. Rev. Stat. §30-2480.” This attorney also 

stated that he would expect a court to award a fee of $15 to $25 

per hour to a lay personal representative with no preexisting 

fee arrangement with the decedent.

The county court determined that Gray was entitled to a 

personal representative fee in the amount of $25,000. The court 

noted that Gray had “maintained a log that recorded his mileage and hours expended on behalf of the estate,” that this log 

was not offered into evidence, and that the “only indication in 

the other affidavits was that . . . Gray had spent approximately 

400 hours in his duties.” As compensation for those 400 hours, 

the award of $25,000 equated to $62.50 per hour.

On May 8, 2013, Gray filed a “motion to Reconsider” pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1329 (Reissue 2008). On June 5, he 

filed an “Amended Motion to Reconsider.” Because Gray filed 

each of these motions pursuant to § 25-1329, they functioned 

as motions to alter or amend.
Nebraska Advance Sheets

226 288 NEBRASKA REPORTS

In the amended motion, Gray alleged that at a prior hearing, he had attempted “to submit a log, or statement of the 

Personal Representative’s time and efforts expended,” and 

that he had only recently learned the documentation had not 

been received as an exhibit. At the hearing on Gray’s motion, 

he asked the county court for “the ability to enter the log 

book” so that the award of fees could be reconsidered in light 

of that evidence.

The county court orally overruled the motion to reconsider 

at the conclusion of the hearing. On July 5, 2013, the court 

entered an order consistent with that ruling, which stated in its 

entirety: “This matter came on for hearing on June 21, 2013[,] 

on the Personal Representative’s Motion to Reconsider. Motion 

to Reconsider is overruled.”

Gray timely appeals. Pursuant to our statutory authority to regulate the dockets of the appellate courts of this 

state, we moved the case to our docket. See Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§ 24-1106(3) (Reissue 2008). Appellees moved for summary 

dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, claiming that the order 

awarding personal representative fees was not a final order. 

We overruled the motion and allowed the case to proceed to 

oral argument.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

Gray assigns that the county court erred in finding that the 

personal representative fee awarded to him was reasonable 

under § 30-2480.

ANALYSIS

Jurisdiction

[4] We first address whether the order awarding the personal representative fee was a final order. Before reaching the 

legal issues presented for review, it is the duty of an appellate 

court to determine whether it has jurisdiction over the matter 

before it. Becerra v. United Parcel Service, 284 Neb. 414, 822 

N.W.2d 327 (2012).

[5,6] For an appellate court to acquire jurisdiction of an 

appeal, there must be a final order entered by the court from 

which the appeal is taken; conversely, an appellate court is 
Nebraska Advance Sheets

IN RE ESTATE OF GSANTNER 227

Cite as 288 Neb. 222

without jurisdiction to entertain appeals from nonfinal orders. 

Id. Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1902 (Reissue 2008), the three 

types of final orders that an appellate court may review are 

(1) an order that affects a substantial right and that determines 

the action and prevents a judgment, (2) an order that affects a 

substantial right made during a special proceeding, and (3) an 

order that affects a substantial right made on summary application in an action after a judgment is rendered. In re Estate of 

McKillip, 284 Neb. 367, 820 N.W.2d 868 (2012).

We have not previously considered whether an order awarding a personal representative fee is a final, appealable order. In 

In re Estate of Lehman, 135 Neb. 592, 283 N.W. 199 (1939), 

we addressed the finality of orders awarding executors’ fees. 

The orders in that case were for “partial distribution and allowances of executors’ fees.” See id. at 601, 283 N.W. at 203. 

The first awarded $1,400 in partial fees to each executor for 

his or her actions from April 30, 1928, to October 31, 1931. 

The second ordered $4,000 in partial fees for the executors’ 

actions from October 31, 1931, to October 31, 1935. Each 

order was a partial fee and did not constitute a final award of 

executors’ fees. On these facts, we held that the orders awarding partial executors’ fees were “interlocutory orders and not 

final orders.” Id. Our holding was specifically limited to “such 

orders sought to be appealed from” in that case. Id. Therefore, 

we did not create a bright-line rule that would be applicable in 

the case at bar. We did not make our determination of finality based upon § 25-1902, which, at that time, was codified at 

Comp. Stat. § 20-1902 (1929).

It is now standard practice for an appellate court to consider 

the finality of an order entered in probate proceedings under 

the rubric of § 25-1902. See, e.g., In re Estate of McKillip, 

supra; In re Estate of Muncillo, 280 Neb. 669, 789 N.W.2d 37 

(2010); In re Estate of Potthoff, 273 Neb. 828, 733 N.W.2d 860 

(2007); In re Estate of Peters, 259 Neb. 154, 609 N.W.2d 23 

(2000); In re Estate of Snover, 233 Neb. 198, 443 N.W.2d 894 

(1989). Thus, we employ § 25-1902 to determine whether the 

order awarding Gray a personal representative fee of $25,000 

was a final order.
Nebraska Advance Sheets

228 288 NEBRASKA REPORTS

[7] The first and third categories of final orders in § 25-1902 

are not at issue in the case at bar, so the question is whether 

the order awarding a personal representative fee of $25,000 

affected a substantial right and was made in a special proceeding. A proceeding under the Nebraska Probate Code is a special 

proceeding. See In re Estate of McKillip, supra. The question 

is whether the order affected a substantial right.

[8-10] A substantial right under § 25-1902 is an essential 

legal right. In re Estate of McKillip, supra. A substantial right 

is involved if an order “affects the subject matter of the litigation, such as diminishing a claim or defense that was available to an appellant before the order from which an appeal is 

taken.” Id. at 373, 820 N.W.2d at 875. Substantial rights under 

§ 25-1902 include those legal rights that a party is entitled to 

enforce or defend. In re Estate of McKillip, supra.

Gray argues that the order awarding a personal representative 

fee of $25,000 affected a substantial right, because as personal 

representative, he had a substantial legal right to reasonable 

compensation under § 30-2480. We agree. The order affected a 

substantial right because under the facts of this case, the order 

finally determined Gray’s claim for reasonable compensation. 

Under § 30-2480, a personal representative is “entitled to reasonable compensation for his services.” Gray was formally 

appointed as personal representative of Gsantner’s estate and 

was entitled to “reasonable compensation.” It was the award 

of $25,000 that determined the amount of compensation Gray 

was to receive.

At the time of the county court’s order awarding a personal 

representative fee of $25,000, the estate had been partially 

distributed and Gray continued to serve as personal representative. Nonetheless, the court awarded Gray the entire 

amount of compensation to which the court found he was 

entitled for his services. Whereas the court’s previous award 

of $17,500 noted that the award was a partial fee, the order 

in question did not include any language that would indicate 

the award was subject to later revision or augmentation. When 

Gray brought his application for fees, he had not requested 

hourly compensation, which would change in the event of further work, but a percentage of the estate. Also, the award was 
Nebraska Advance Sheets

IN RE ESTATE OF GSANTNER 229

Cite as 288 Neb. 222

made after the court conducted a special evidentiary hearing 

on the issue of fees. Thus, we conclude that the court’s order 

awarding a personal representative fee of $25,000 was a final 

order that determined what constituted reasonable compensation for Gray’s services.

In setting the amount of reasonable compensation at $25,000, 

the order disposed of Gray’s claim under § 30-2480. The order 

awarded the only personal representative fee Gray was going 

to receive. The order was dispositive of Gray’s claim for reasonable compensation under § 30-2480 and thus affected a 

substantial right.

Appellees argue that under § 25-1902, it is not sufficient that 

the order awarding a personal representative fee of $25,000 

affected a substantial right of Gray. They assert that in order to 

be final, the order must affect a substantial right of the estate, 

not a substantial right of the personal representative. We disagree. The only support appellees provide for this proposition 

is In re Adoption of Amea R., 282 Neb. 751, 807 N.W.2d 736 

(2011), which is not applicable to the case at bar.

In re Adoption of Amea R., supra, considered whether a 

son could appeal from an order prohibiting him from participating in adoption proceedings initiated by his father. The 

son had sought to intervene in the proceedings not in his own 

behalf, but in a representative capacity as his father’s “next 

friend.” Id. at 753, 807 N.W.2d at 739. Because the son did 

not have a direct interest in the adoption proceedings, we 

concluded that his right to participate was vicarious to that of 

his father and, consequently, was not a substantial right under 

§ 25-1902.

Appellees compare Gray’s right to reasonable compensation to those of the son in In re Adoption of Amea R., 

supra. According to appellees’ motion for summary dismissal, 

Gray’s right is “vicarious and ancillary to the rights of the 

underlying estate” and is not a substantial right for purposes 

of § 25-1902.

But appellees’ reliance on In re Adoption of Amea R., 

supra, is clearly misplaced. The relationship between Gray 

and Gsantner’s estate is not analogous to that between the son 

and his father in that case. As a properly appointed personal 
Nebraska Advance Sheets

230 288 NEBRASKA REPORTS

representative, Gray had a right to reasonable compensation 

under § 30-2480. That right existed independently of the rights 

of the estate. It was not dependent upon the rights of another 

party, as in In re Adoption of Amea R., supra. Additionally, 

because of the right bestowed by § 30-2480, Gray had a direct 

interest in the proceedings giving rise to the order from which 

he now appeals.

Because Gray’s right to reasonable compensation was not 

vicarious, In re Adoption of Amea R., supra, provides no support for appellees’ argument that under § 25-1902, a final order 

does not exist unless a substantial right of the underlying estate 

is affected. The county court’s order awarding a personal representative fee of $25,000 determined the total amount of Gray’s 

compensation, and as such, it affected Gray’s substantial right 

and was a final order. See § 25-1902. Thus, we have jurisdiction to consider Gray’s appeal from that order.

Amount of Personal

Representative Fee

Gray assigns that the county court erred in awarding him 

a personal representative fee of only $25,000. We review the 

award for error appearing on the record. See In re Estate of 

Failla, 278 Neb. 770, 773 N.W.2d 793 (2009). As such, our 

inquiry is “whether the decision conforms to the law, is supported by competent evidence, and is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable.” See Krings v. Garfield Cty. Bd. of 

Equal., 286 Neb. 352, 356, 835 N.W.2d 750, 753 (2013).

Under § 30-2480, Gray was entitled to “reasonable compensation.” The term “reasonable compensation” is not defined in 

§ 30-2480. However, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2482(2) (Reissue 

2008) provides a list of factors “to be considered as guides in 

determining the reasonableness of a fee” awarded to a personal 

representative. These factors are provided to aid in reviewing 

a personal representative fee when it is before a court on the 

petition for review of an interested person. See § 30-2482. The 

factors to be considered are as follows:

(a) The time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to 

perform the service properly;
Nebraska Advance Sheets

IN RE ESTATE OF GSANTNER 231

Cite as 288 Neb. 222

(b) The likelihood, if apparent to the personal representative, that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude the person employed from other 

employment;

(c) The fee customarily charged in the locality for similar services;

(d) The amount involved and the results obtained;

(e) The time limitations imposed by the personal representative or by the circumstances;

(f) The nature and length of the relationship between 

the personal representative and the person performing the 

services; and

(g) The experience, reputation, and ability of the person performing the services.

§ 30-2482(2). These factors provide an indication of what facts 

the Legislature intended to be considered when determining a 

reasonable fee.

The affidavits adduced by Gray and appellees provided 

information relevant to many of these factors. The affidavits 

presented by Gray opined that Gsantner’s estate was complex 

and required extraordinary amounts of work by Gray, which 

he performed competently, professionally, and at great opportunity cost. These affidavits stated that a customary personal 

representative fee was between 1 and 3 percent of the estate or 

between $150 and $225 per hour.

In contrast, the affidavit proffered by appellees described 

the estate as “fairly ‘liquid’” and emphasized that Gray was 

a “lay” personal representative. According to appellees’ evidence, a lay personal representative typically received between 

$15 and $25 per hour. After weighing this evidence, the 

county court determined that Gray was entitled to $25,000 for 

his services.

[11] Gray asks us to reverse the award of $25,000, because 

the award disregards the evidence he submitted. In doing so, 

he asks us to reweigh the evidence. We decline to do so. In 

reviewing the judgment awarded by the probate court in 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 
Nebraska Advance Sheets

232 288 NEBRASKA REPORTS

successful party, who is entitled to every reasonable inference deducible from the evidence. In re Trust of Hrnicek, 280 

Neb. 898, 792 N.W.2d 143 (2010). When viewed in the light 

most favorable to appellees, the evidence supports the county 

court’s award of a $25,000 personal representative fee.

The county court was presented with a wide range of evidence on the complexity of Gsantner’s estate and what level 

of compensation would be customary for Gray’s work, which 

are factors to be considered under § 30-2482. Indeed, the facts 

were far from “undisputed,” as Gray contends. See brief for 

appellant at 21. Although Gray’s evidence indicated that the 

estate was complex, that the quality of his work was equal 

to that of a large bank trust department, and that his work 

deserved much greater compensation, other evidence was to 

the contrary. Appellees’ evidence showed that the estate was 

not complex, Gray’s work was not out of the ordinary, and an 

award of $25,000 was reasonable given the customary compensation for such work.

It was within the province of the county court to decide 

upon which evidence it would rely. It was also within the 

court’s discretion to weigh the factors that were relevant 

to its determination of reasonableness. Since appellees’ evidence supported the award of a personal representative fee 

of $25,000, we cannot say that this award was contrary 

to the law. Neither can we say that it was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. Therefore, we affirm the order of the 

county court.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that we have jurisdiction over this appeal and we affirm the award of a personal 

representative fee of $25,000.

Affirmed.