- 630 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

299 Nebraska Report

IN RE ESTATE OF HASTERLIK

Cite as 299 Neb. 630

In re Estate of Richard A. Hasterlik, 

Kimberlee Voss, Personal Repres

of the Estate of Richard A. Hast

deceased, appellant, v. State

Nebraska, appellee.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed April 13, 2018. No. S-17-592.

1. Decedents’ Estates: Taxation: Appeal and Error. On appeal of an 

inheritance tax determination, an appellate court reviews the case for 

error appearing on the record.

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

appearing on the record, the inquiry is whether the decision conforms 

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

capricious, nor unreasonable.

3. Decedents’ Estates: Parent and Child: Taxation: Appeal and Error. 

Factual findings necessary in determining whether the requisite acknowledged parent-child relationship of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-2004 (Reissue 

2009) exists should be reviewed for sufficient evidence and should not 

be disturbed on appeal unless clearly wrong.

4. Decedents’ Estates: Taxation: Statutes: Proof. Statutes exempting 

property from inheritance tax should be strictly construed, and the burden is on the taxpayer to show that he or she clearly falls within the 

language of the statute.

5. Decedents’ Estates: Parent and Child: Taxation. The following factors serve as appropriate guideposts to the trial court in making a determination of an acknowledged relationship of a parent under Neb. Rev. 

Stat. § 77-2004 (Reissue 2009): (1) reception of the child into the home 

and treatment of the child as a member of the family, (2) assumption 

of the responsibility for support beyond occasional gifts and financial 

aid, (3) exercise of parental authority and discipline, (4) relationship by 

blood or marriage, (5) advice and guidance to the child, (6) sharing of 

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/

04/13/2018 08:34 AM CDT
- 631 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

299 Nebraska Report

IN RE ESTATE OF HASTERLIK

Cite as 299 Neb. 630

time and affection, and (7) existence of written documentation evincing 

the decedent’s intent to act as parent.

6. Witnesses: Testimony. The credibility of a witness is a question for the 

trier of fact, and it is within its province to credit the whole of the witness’ testimony, or any part of it, which seemed to it to be convincing, 

and reject so much of it as in its judgment is not entitled to credit.

Appeal from the County Court for Dodge County: Kenn

J. Vampola, Judge. Affirmed

Rebecca Abell Brown, of R. Abell Brown Law, L.L.C., for 

appellant.

Linsey Moran Bryant, Chief Deputy Dodge County Attorney, 

and Emily A. Beamis for appellee.

Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, and St

and Moore, Chief Judge, and Arterburn, Judge, and Doy

District Judge.

Cassel, J.

INTRODUCTION

Kimberlee Voss, personal representative of the estate of 

Richard A. Hasterlik, deceased, appeals from the county court’s 

determination that she, as an individual beneficiary, did not 

qualify for preferential inheritance tax treatment under Neb. 

Rev. Stat. § 77-2004 (Reissue 2009). The court found that Voss 

failed to prove the decedent stood in the acknowledged relation 

of a parent to her. Because the county court’s factual determination was not clearly wrong, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

The evidence presented to the county court established that 

Voss’ biological father passed away in 1983 when she was 25 

years old. The decedent became engaged to Voss’ mother 2 

years later, but the two never married. Instead, they cohabitated 

in Wisconsin and later in Nebraska until Voss’ mother passed 

away in 2013.
- 632 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

299 Nebraska Report

IN RE ESTATE OF HASTERLIK

Cite as 299 Neb. 630

While Voss’ mother and the decedent lived in Wisconsin, 

Voss’ family would visit them a few times a year, and she 

would often have them stay at her home in Nebraska during 

visits. After the couple moved to Nebraska, Voss’ family spent 

holidays with them and would see them a few times a week. 

Voss’ mother and the decedent would provide money to Voss 

“at times,” and they bought her son a car when he graduated 

from high school. After Voss’ mother passed away, Voss’ family continued to spend holidays with the decedent and would 

see him about once a week. They also helped him with grocery 

shopping and home maintenance.

Voss’ affidavit indicated that the decedent was protective of 

her and would give her “fatherly advice and guidance.” She 

further testified that the decedent referred to her as his stepdaughter. She attached a “previous” will to her affidavit, which 

showed that the decedent had previously disinherited his biological daughter and devised his entire estate to Voss’ mother. 

Under that will, Voss was to inherit in the event that her mother 

predeceased the decedent. Although the affidavit recited that a 

more recent will had been executed, neither that will nor any 

other county court filings (other than the order being appealed) 

were included in the appellate record.

On this evidence, the county court concluded that it was 

“unable to differentiate that [the decedent] provided anything 

to [Voss] or acted in a manner toward [her] that was above 

and beyond the normal circumstances of his companionship 

with [Voss’] mother.” Accordingly, it determined that Voss’ 

inheritance did not qualify for the 1-percent tax rate under 

§ 77-2004.

Voss appealed, and we moved the case to our docket.1

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

Voss assigns that the county court erred in finding that the 

evidence did not establish that she was a person to whom the 

1 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-1106(3) (Supp. 2017).
- 633 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

299 Nebraska Report

IN RE ESTATE OF HASTERLIK

Cite as 299 Neb. 630

deceased, for more than 10 years prior to death, stood in the 

acknowledged relation of a parent.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1,2] On appeal of an inheritance tax determination, an 

appellate court reviews the case for error appearing on the 

record.2 When reviewing a judgment for errors appearing on 

the record, the inquiry is whether the decision conforms to the 

law, is supported by competent evidence, and is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable.3

[3] Factual findings necessary in determining whether the 

requisite acknowledged parent-child relationship of § 77-2004 

exists should be reviewed for sufficient evidence and should 

not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly wrong.4

ANALYSIS

[4] Statutes exempting property from inheritance tax should 

be strictly construed, and the burden is on the taxpayer to 

show that he or she clearly falls within the language of the 

statute.5 Section 77-2004 provides that “any person to whom 

the deceased for not less than ten years prior to death stood 

in the acknowledged relation of a parent” shall receive an 

inheritance tax exemption of $40,000 and shall be taxed at 

the rate of 1-percent of the clear market value of the property 

thereafter. Therefore, it was Voss’ burden to establish that she 

was a person “to whom the deceased for not less than ten 

years prior to death stood in the acknowledged relation of 

a parent.”

[5] The following factors serve as appropriate guideposts to 

the trial court in making a determination of an acknowledged 

relationship of a parent under § 77-2004: (1) reception of the 

2 See In re Estate of Craven, 281 Neb. 122, 794 N.W.2d 406 (2011).

3 Id.

4 In re Estate of Kite, 260 Neb. 135, 615 N.W.2d 481 (2000).

5 In re Estate of Breslow, 266 Neb. 953, 670 N.W.2d 797 (2003).
- 634 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

299 Nebraska Report

IN RE ESTATE OF HASTERLIK

Cite as 299 Neb. 630

child into the home and treatment of the child as a member 

of the family, (2) assumption of the responsibility for support beyond occasional gifts and financial aid, (3) exercise of 

parental authority and discipline, (4) relationship by blood or 

marriage, (5) advice and guidance to the child, (6) sharing of 

time and affection, and (7) existence of written documentation 

evincing the decedent’s intent to act as parent.6

[6] Voss testified that the decedent referred to her as his 

stepdaughter. The credibility of a witness is a question for the 

trier of fact, and it is within its province to credit the whole of 

the witness’ testimony, or any part of it, which seemed to it to 

be convincing, and reject so much of it as in its judgment is 

not entitled to credit.7 Even if Voss’ testimony would have been 

sufficient for the county court to make the necessary finding, 

the court was not required to do so.

The evidence offered at trial was sparse and included a 

two-page affidavit, the decedent’s previous will, and Voss’ 

summary answer to a single question. No evidence was offered 

concerning the third factor—exercise of parental authority 

and discipline—and, though Voss described her mother’s and 

the decedent’s relationship as “a close marital type relationship,” no actual blood or marital relationship existed. Neither 

Wisconsin law8 nor Nebraska law9 allows for the establishment of common-law marriages, and Voss conceded that they 

had not legally married. Therefore, the fourth factor—relationship by blood or marriage—also weighed against Voss’ 

entitlement to the § 77-2004 tax rate. No credible evidence was 

offered concerning the seventh factor—written documentation 

of intent—as Voss offered only a copy of the decedent’s previous will—not his most recent will. And there is nothing in the 

6 In re Estate of Kite, supra note 4.

7 In re Estate of Ross, 19 Neb. App. 355, 810 N.W.2d 435 (2011).

8 See Watts v. Watts, 137 Wis. 2d 506, 405 N.W.2d 303 (1987).

9 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-104 (Reissue 2016).
- 635 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

299 Nebraska Report

IN RE ESTATE OF HASTERLIK

Cite as 299 Neb. 630

record to show that Voss received the same treatment in the 

controlling will as she did under the previous will.

As to the remaining factors, it is apparent from the record 

that Voss and the decedent cared for one another and would 

spend time together for holidays and regular visits. However, 

the county court concluded that the evidence was insufficient 

to establish the decedent acted in a manner toward Voss that 

went above and beyond the normal circumstances of his relationship with her mother. We cannot say that the county court 

was clearly wrong in determining that Voss failed to carry her 

burden of proof.

CONCLUSION

Because the county court’s factual determination was not 

clearly wrong, we affirm the order of the county court.

Affirme

Wright and Funke, JJ., not participati