- 691 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

31 Nebraska Appellate Reports

WHITE V. WHIT

Cite as 31 Neb. App. 691

Yvonne M. White, formerly known as Yvonne M. 

Gubser, appellee, v. Jamison Patrick White 

and Ryan Howard White, Copersonal 

Representatives of the Estate of Leonard 

P. White, deceased, appellants.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed March 28, 2023. No. A-22-024.

1. Summary Judgment: Appeal and Error. An appellate court affirms a 

lower court’s grant of summary judgment if the pleadings and admitted 

evidence show that there is no genuine issue as to any material facts or 

as to the ultimate inferences that may be drawn from the facts and that 

the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

2. ____: ____. In reviewing a summary judgment, an appellate court views 

the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom the 

judgment was granted, and gives that party the benefit of all reasonable 

inferences deducible from the evidence.

3. Judgments: Appeal and Error. When reviewing questions of law, an 

appellate court resolves the questions independently of the lower court’s 

conclusion.

4. ____: ____. In a bench trial of a law action, a trial court’s factual findings have the effect of a jury verdict and will not be set aside on appeal 

unless clearly wrong.

5. ____: ____. After a bench trial of 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.

6. Decedents’ Estates: Claims: Time. The requirements of Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§ 30-2485 (Reissue 2016) are mandatory, and where a claim is not filed 

within the time provided in the statute, it is barred.

7. Decedents’ Estates. The purpose of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2485 (Reissue 

2016) is to facilitate and expedite proceedings to distribute a decedent’s estate, including an early appraisal of the respective rights of 

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

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

04/04/2023 12:04 AM CDT
- 692 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

31 Nebraska Appellate Reports

WHITE V. WHIT

Cite as 31 Neb. App. 691

interested persons, which include creditors, and prompt settlement of 

demands against the estate.

8. Decedents’ Estates: Claims: Notice. Mere notice to a representative 

of an estate regarding a possible demand or claim against the estate 

does not constitute presenting or filing a claim under Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§ 30-2486 (Reissue 2016).

9. Antenuptial Agreements. Premarital agreements are contracts made in 

contemplation of marriage.

10. Contracts: Intent. If a contract is unambiguous, the intent of the parties 

must be determined from the contents of the contract.

11. Contracts. The interpretation of a contract and whether the contract is 

ambiguous are questions of law subject to independent review.

12. Appeal and Error. In order to be considered by an appellate court, an 

alleged error must be both specifically assigned and specifically argued 

in the brief of the party asserting the error.

Appeal from the District Court for Washington County: 

John E. Samson, Judge. Affirmed.

Perry A. Pirsch, of Pirsch Legal Services, P.C., L.L.O., for 

appellants.

Brent M. Kuhn and Haley L. Cannon, of Brent Kuhn Law, 

for appellee.

Moore, Riedmann, and Bishop, Judges.

Riedmann, Judge.

INTRODUCTION

Jamison Patrick White and Ryan Howard White, as coper

sonal representatives of the estate of Leonard P. White, appeal 

the order of the district court for Washington County, Nebraska, 

granting summary judgment in favor of Yvonne M. White, 

formerly known as Yvonne M. Gubser, based on its finding 

that Yvonne was entitled to the payment of $100,000 from 

Leonard’s estate, pursuant to the terms of a premarital agreement between Yvonne and Leonard. Jamison and Ryan also 

appeal the district court’s award of a camper to Yvonne based 

on its interpretation of the premarital agreement.
- 693 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

31 Nebraska Appellate Reports

WHITE V. WHIT

Cite as 31 Neb. App. 691

BACKGROUND

Yvonne and Leonard were married on October 14, 2016. 

On September 30, prior to the marriage, the parties executed a 

premarital agreement. The premarital agreement included provisions regarding ownership of property the parties purchased 

after the marriage, the parties’ intent that each would have 

the right to dispose of her or his separate property without 

the other acquiring an interest in that property, and a nondiscretionary provision that if Leonard died before Yvonne, she 

would receive $100,000 from his estate.

Leonard died on October 19, 2018. On March 6, 2019, 

Leonard’s two sons, Jamison and Ryan, filed an application 

for informal probate of Leonard’s will and requested they be 

appointed copersonal representatives of the estate. Attached to 

this filing was a copy of Leonard’s will, executed on November 

10, 2006, which provided for a pourover to his living trust; a 

copy of the premarital agreement was also attached.

The application included statements that Yvonne and 

Leonard had been married at the time of Leonard’s death and 

that the premarital agreement included a provision in which 

Yvonne and Leonard “retain[ed] all rights in and with respect 

to her or his own separate property” and had the absolute and 

unrestricted right to dispose of such property in any manner. 

The application stated that a separate section of the premarital 

agreement set forth provisions Leonard had made for Yvonne’s 

benefit in the event he predeceased her. It acknowledged that 

“[t]he Premarital Agreement between Yvonne . . . and [Leonard] 

executed on September 30, 2016 was unrevoked and remained 

in force and effect as of [Leonard’s] death.” The first notice to 

creditors was published March 12, 2019, and it directed claims 

to be filed by May 13. On May 30, Jamison and Ryan filed 

an inventory, which showed there was no jointly owned property, and it listed a “2015 Cyclone 4000 Fifth Wheel Camper” 

(Camper) as property of the estate.

On September 27, 2019, Yvonne filed a complaint in district court against Jamison and Ryan in their capacity as 
- 694 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

31 Nebraska Appellate Reports

WHITE V. WHIT

Cite as 31 Neb. App. 691

copersonal representatives of Leonard’s estate, alleging that 

the estate was currently subject to probate and that the coper

sonal representatives had claimed the estate had ownership 

of the Camper; however, under the terms of the premarital 

agreement, Yvonne claimed she was the rightful owner of the 

Camper. She also alleged that pursuant to the premarital agreement, she was to receive $100,000 from Leonard’s estate, but 

that Jamison and Ryan had failed, refused, and/or neglected to 

pay in accordance with the terms of the premarital agreement. 

Jamison and Ryan moved to dismiss Yvonne’s complaint on 

the basis that any matter arising from the premarital agreement related to Leonard’s estate and that pursuant to Neb. 

Rev. Stat. § 24-517(1) (Cum. Supp. 2022), the county court 

had exclusive original jurisdiction of all matters related to 

decedents’ estates.

No order on the motion to dismiss appears in our record, 

but Jamison and Ryan subsequently filed an answer, alleging, as relevant to this appeal, that the premarital agreement 

did not provide for any camper to be distributed to Yvonne 

and that Yvonne did not make a timely claim under Neb. 

Rev. Stat. § 30-2314(3) (Reissue 2016); the answer also 

alleged that Yvonne failed to make a timely, valid claim in 

the estate proceedings to enforce the premarital agreement. 

They asserted the affirmative defenses of statute of limitations, laches, and partial satisfaction through the conversion 

of Leonard’s personal property. In her reply, Yvonne alleged 

that at the time of the filing of the initial pleading for the 

estate proceedings, Jamison and Ryan had attached a copy of 

the premarital agreement and acknowledged its validity, which 

occurred during the claim-filing time period. She asserted that 

by doing so, they had made an admission as to the claims 

under the premarital agreement and were therefore precluded 

from denying them.

Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. Follow

ing a hearing, the district court found Jamison and Ryan 

had judicially admitted in the probate proceedings that the 
- 695 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

31 Nebraska Appellate Reports

WHITE V. WHIT

Cite as 31 Neb. App. 691

premarital agreement was unrevoked and remained in full 

force and effect. It found that they had waived the necessity 

of Yvonne’s filing a claim and that her claim was timely filed 

and not barred by any applicable statute of limitations. The 

district court rendered judgment for Yvonne in the amount of 

$100,000. But the district court found a genuine issue of material fact regarding the ownership of the Camper and denied the 

motion for summary judgment on that issue.

After a trial on the issue of the Camper ownership, the district court entered an order affirming its previous ruling as it 

related to the $100,000 payment; it also found that under the 

four corners of the premarital agreement, the Camper was a 

personal article that was deemed to be jointly owned, with full 

rights of survivorship. The district court found Yvonne should 

be distributed all right, title, and interest in and to the Camper. 

Jamison and Ryan timely appealed.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

Jamison and Ryan assign, restated, that the district court erred 

in granting summary judgment in favor of Yvonne because she 

failed to comply with the time requirements of Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§ 30-2485 (Reissue 2016) and that their application for informal probate did not relieve her from doing so. They also assign 

the court erred in awarding Yvonne the Camper.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1,2] An appellate court affirms a lower court’s grant of 

summary judgment if the pleadings and admitted evidence 

show that there is no genuine issue as to any material facts or 

as to the ultimate inferences that may be drawn from the facts 

and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter 

of law. Porter v. Knife River, Inc., 310 Neb. 946, 970 N.W.2d 

104 (2022). In reviewing a summary judgment, an appellate 

court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the 

party against whom the judgment was granted, and gives that 

party the benefit of all reasonable inferences deducible from 

the evidence. Id.
- 696 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

31 Nebraska Appellate Reports

WHITE V. WHIT

Cite as 31 Neb. App. 691

[3] When reviewing questions of law, an appellate court 

resolves the questions independently of the lower court’s 

conclusion. Kozal v. Snyder, 312 Neb. 208, 978 N.W.2d 

174 (2022).

[4,5] In a bench trial of a law action, a trial court’s factual 

findings have the effect of a jury verdict and will not be set 

aside on appeal unless clearly wrong. McGill Restoration v. 

Lion Place Condo. Assn., 309 Neb. 202, 959 N.W.2d 251 

(2021). After a bench trial of 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. Id.

ANALYSIS

Before addressing the assigned errors, we note that both 

parties proceeded in the district court under the assumption 

that Yvonne was asserting a claim, as that term is defined in 

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2209(4) (Reissue 2016), and therefore, 

it was subject to the nonclaim statute, § 30-2485. Because the 

statute’s applicability was not addressed in the district court, 

we assume, without deciding, that it was a claim subject to 

the nonclaim statute, and we proceed to the issues raised. See,

Simons v. Simons, 312 Neb. 136, 978 N.W.2d. 121 (2022) 

(appellate courts do not generally consider arguments and theories raised for first time on appeal); State v. Conn, 300 Neb. 

391, 914 N.W.2d 440 (2018) (refusing to address on appeal 

applicability of statute not raised in trial court).

Yvonne’s Entitlement to $100,000 Payment.

On appeal, Jamison and Ryan argue that the district court 

erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Yvonne 

because she failed to timely file a claim in the probate proceeding. Yvonne asserts that the copersonal representatives’ 

acknowledgment of a valid premarital agreement in their verified application of informal probate constituted a judicial 

admission that relieved her of the obligation to file a claim. 
- 697 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

31 Nebraska Appellate Reports

WHITE V. WHIT

Cite as 31 Neb. App. 691

The district court agreed with Yvonne’s assertions, finding that 

Jamison and Ryan waived the necessity of Yvonne’s filing of a 

claim, finding instead that Yvonne’s claim was timely filed due 

to the copersonal representatives’ judicial admission.

The premarital agreement provides, in part, that if Yvonne 

survives Leonard, “Yvonne shall receive One Hundred 

Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) from [Leonard’s] estate (and 

this provision shall be treated as a contract to make a Will 

as described in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2351) . . . .” In consideration, the parties waived any claim in the other spouse’s 

separate property. As stated above, the copersonal representatives attached a copy of the agreement to their application for 

informal probate and admitted that it “remained in force and 

effect” at the time of Leonard’s death. After the copersonal 

representatives failed to distribute the $100,000 to Yvonne, 

she filed suit in the district court to recover under the premarital agreement.

Section 30-2485 requires that a claim against a decedent’s 

estate which arises at or after the decedent’s death be brought 

within 4 months after it arises. Yvonne did not file a claim in 

the probate proceeding, but argues that the copersonal representatives essentially filed the claim for her. She contends that 

their acts of attaching the premarital agreement to the application for informal probate and verifying that it was in force and 

effect was a judicial admission of her entitlement to receive 

its benefits.

[6,7] The requirements of § 30-2485 are mandatory, and 

where a claim is not filed within the time provided in the 

statute, it is barred. In re Estate of Giventer, 310 Neb. 39, 

964 N.W.2d 234 (2021). See, also, In re Estate of Lakin, 310 

Neb. 271, 965 N.W.2d 365 (2021) (copy of promissory note, 

letter, and calculation of interest mailed to personal represent

ative insufficient to constitute proper demand or presentation of claim). The purpose of § 30-2485 is to facilitate and 

expedite proceedings to distribute a decedent’s estate, including an early appraisal of the respective rights of interested 
- 698 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

31 Nebraska Appellate Reports

WHITE V. WHIT

Cite as 31 Neb. App. 691

persons, which include creditors, and prompt settlement of 

demands against the estate. See § 30-2209(21). As a result, 

the probate court or the personal representative can readily 

ascertain the nature and extent of a decedent’s debts, determine whether any sale of property is necessary to satisfy the 

decedent’s debts, and project a probable time at which the 

decedent’s estate will be ready for distribution. In re Estate of 

Giventer, supra.

[8] In re Estate of Giventer, supra, does not preclude a 

determination that the copersonal representatives’ actions satisfied the filing requirement. In In re Estate of Giventer, the 

court stated that mere notice to a representative of an estate 

regarding a possible demand or claim against the estate does 

not constitute presenting or filing a claim under Neb. Rev. 

Stat. § 30-2486 (Reissue 2016). But here, there was more than 

notice; there was the affirmative act by the copersonal representatives of filing in the probate proceeding a copy of the premarital agreement and an attestation that it remained in effect. 

The reason mere notice is insufficient is that “[i]f notice were 

accorded the stature of a claim, the resultant state of flux and 

uncertainty would frustrate and avoid the purpose and objectives of the nonclaim statute.” In re Estate of Feuerhelm, 215 

Neb. 872, 875, 341 N.W.2d 342, 345 (1983).

Given the facts of this case, we fail to see how the absence 

of a claim filed by Yvonne after the admissions made by the 

copersonal representatives created a state of flux or uncertainty. The copersonal representatives filed an application for 

informal probate in which they provided a copy of the premarital agreement which set forth the amount owed Yvonne 

and acknowledged that it remained in force and effect on the 

date of Leonard’s death. This goes above and beyond notice of 

a potential claim; it was an acknowledgment of a valid claim 

held by Yvonne against the estate for $100,000. The district 

court did not err in its finding that Yvonne was entitled to a 

judgment of $100,000 against the copersonal representatives.
- 699 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

31 Nebraska Appellate Reports

WHITE V. WHIT

Cite as 31 Neb. App. 691

Yvonne’s Entitlement to Camper.

[9-11] Jamison and Ryan also argue the district court erred 

in finding Yvonne and Leonard owned the Camper as a joint 

asset under the premarital agreement. Premarital agreements 

are contracts made in contemplation of marriage. In re Estate 

of McConnell, 28 Neb. App. 303, 943 N.W.2d 722 (2020). In 

interpreting contracts, the court as a matter of law must first 

determine whether the contract is ambiguous. Id. An instrument is ambiguous if a word, phrase, or provision in the 

instrument has, or is susceptible of, at least two reasonable 

but conflicting interpretations or meanings. Id. If a contract is 

unambiguous, the intent of the parties must be determined from 

the contents of the contract. Id. The interpretation of a contract 

and whether the contract is ambiguous are questions of law 

subject to independent review. Id.

In support of their argument, Jamison and Ryan point to 

two sections of the premarital agreement that relate to the 

separate property that Yvonne and Leonard were bringing 

into the marriage. The two sections provided that Yvonne and 

Leonard retained all rights with respect to her or his separate 

property, were the sole owners of her or his separate property, 

and retained unlimited inter vivos and testamentary rights to 

it. Another section related to the intention not to have joint 

ownership of their separate property. Yvonne and Leonard 

each provided an exhibit to the premarital agreement listing 

their separate property. There were no vehicles itemized on 

either listing of separate property; the listings were financial 

accounts, life insurance policies, or real property.

Yvonne contends that the Camper falls under a different 

section of the premarital agreement, specifically the section 

related to personal and household articles. This section provides in part that for purposes of the agreement, “the term 

personal and household articles includes all articles of personal and household use . . . wherever located, such as, by 

way of illustration, . . . motor vehicles, boats, [and] sports 

equipment.” The next section states that “[u]nless otherwise 
- 700 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

31 Nebraska Appellate Reports

WHITE V. WHIT

Cite as 31 Neb. App. 691

specifically agreed to by the parties at the time of purchase, all 

personal and household articles later acquired by Yvonne and 

[Leonard] shall be deemed to be jointly owned, with full rights 

of survivorship.”

We do not find the premarital agreement to be ambiguous. 

The premarital agreement provides that any personal property, 

such as motor vehicles, boats, and sports equipment, acquired 

after the marriage would be deemed jointly owned with full 

rights of survivorship, unless otherwise specifically agreed 

to by the parties. At trial, Yvonne testified that when she and 

Leonard married, he had a “Bighorn” camper (Bighorn), but 

that later, Leonard decided he wanted to get rid of or sell it. 

Leonard wanted to have the capability to carry his motorcycle 

without using a trailer behind the Bighorn, and he found a 

camper in Kansas; Yvonne was unable to go with him, so 

Leonard went to Kansas with the Bighorn. Leonard returned 

from Kansas with the Camper at issue in this appeal, having traded in the Bighorn for the Camper. Yvonne identified 

the title to the Camper, which listed Leonard as the owner. 

Yvonne testified that as far as she knew, Leonard purchased the 

Camper in full when he went to Kansas. She also confirmed 

that as far as she knew, there was no agreement between them 

at the time Leonard purchased the Camper that it would be his 

separate property under the premarital agreement, and that they 

never executed any document after the premarital agreement 

that said anything like that.

Yvonne established that the Camper was acquired after 

she and Leonard married and that there was no agreement 

that it would be Leonard’s separate property. The Camper is 

similar to items Yvonne and Leonard identified in the premarital agreement as personal and household articles, like motor 

vehicles, boats, and sports equipment. Yvonne established 

that under the terms of the premarital agreement, she and 

Leonard jointly owned the Camper with full rights of survivorship. The district court did not err in determining she should be 

awarded the right, title, and interest in the Camper.
- 701 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

31 Nebraska Appellate Reports

WHITE V. WHIT

Cite as 31 Neb. App. 691

Jamison and Ryan argue that to prevent unjust enrichment, 

even if the district court did not err in awarding Yvonne the 

Camper, the district court did err in failing to order her to 

reimburse them for the amounts incurred as storage fees for 

the Camper, the insurance paid, and the payoff of the home 

equity loan Leonard used to finance the Camper, for a total 

of $36,578. However, on appeal, Jamison and Ryan assigned 

that the district court “committed reversible error in awarding 

a camper titled in [Leonard’s] name to [Yvonne] pursuant to 

its interpretation of a prenuptial agreement that established the 

camper as [Leonard’s] separate property as a matter of law.”

[12] Jamison and Ryan assigned that the district court erred 

in awarding Yvonne the Camper based on its interpretation of 

the premarital agreement. They did not assign that the district 

court erred in failing to order Yvonne to reimburse them for 

expenses related to the Camper. In order to be considered 

by an appellate court, an alleged error must be both specifically assigned and specifically argued in the brief of the party 

asserting the error. Scalise v. Davis, 312 Neb. 518, 980 N.W.2d 

27 (2022). We will not address this argued, but unassigned, 

alleged error.

CONCLUSION

We find the district court did not err in awarding Yvonne 

a judgment of $100,000 against Jamison and Ryan as coper

sonal representatives of Leonard’s estate, nor did it err in 

awarding Yvonne the Camper. We affirm the judgment of the 

district court.

Affirmed.

Bishop, Judge, concurring.

I concur with the majority’s decision to affirm the district 

court’s awards to Yvonne.

I write separately because I am not persuaded that attaching the premarital agreement to the copersonal representatives’ 

application for informal probate and their acknowledgment 

that the premarital agreement was unrevoked and remained 
- 702 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

31 Nebraska Appellate Reports

WHITE V. WHIT

Cite as 31 Neb. App. 691

in full force and effect at the time of Leonard’s death satisfied 

the filing requirement for a claim under the nonclaim statute, 

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2485 (Reissue 2016). See, In re Estate of 

Lakin, 310 Neb. 271, 965 N.W.2d 365 (2021) (judicial admissions must be deliberate, clear, and unequivocal; administrator 

cannot waive defense of nonclaim to prejudice of estate); In re 

Estate of Giventer, 310 Neb. 39, 56, 964 N.W.2d 234, 245-46 

(2021) (“mere notice to a representative of an estate regarding a possible demand or claim against the estate does not 

constitute presenting or filing a claim under § 30-2486”); In re 

Estate of Feuerhelm, 215 Neb. 872, 875, 341 N.W.2d 342, 344 

(1983) (emphasis in original) (mere notice to representative of 

estate regarding possible demand or claim against estate does 

not constitute presenting or filing claim under Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§ 30-2486 (Reissue 2016); implicit in language of § 30-2486, 

which states that “‘[t]he claimant may file a written statement 

of the claim,’” is the “requirement that the creditor to whom 

the decedent is obligated is the claimant who can present a 

demand against the estate”). In my opinion, the copersonal 

representatives’ acknowledgment that the premarital agreement 

was unrevoked and remained in full force and effect served 

only to give interested parties notice of its existence and validity, nothing more.

That said, I am also not persuaded that the nonclaim statute, 

§ 30-2485, applies to the underlying proceedings.

At the onset of the analysis in the majority opinion, it 

assumes, without deciding, that Yvonne was asserting a claim 

subject to the nonclaim statute, § 30-2485, because the parties proceeded in the district court under that assumption and 

the statute’s applicability was not addressed in the district 

court. However, even though not raised, the issue of whether 

§ 30-2485 should have applied to Yvonne’s action presents a 

question of law, which an appellate court has an obligation 

to reach independently, irrespective of the decision made by 

the trial court. See Moser v. State, 307 Neb. 18, 948 N.W.2d 

194 (2020). In my opinion, Yvonne was a beneficiary of 
- 703 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

31 Nebraska Appellate Reports

WHITE V. WHIT

Cite as 31 Neb. App. 691

Leonard’s estate under the terms of the premarital agreement, 

which specifically expressed Yvonne’s and Leonard’s intent 

that certain provisions be treated as a contract to make a will; 

Yvonne was not a creditor, so her action to obtain certain assets 

under the premarital agreement did not constitute a claim 

against the estate, thus making the time limitations to file a 

claim set forth in § 30-2485 inapplicable.

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2209 (Reissue 2016) sets forth general 

definitions for the Nebraska Probate Code and, as relevant 

here, provides:

(4) Claim, in respect to estates of decedents and protected persons, includes liabilities of the decedent or 

protected person whether arising in contract, in tort or 

otherwise, and liabilities of the estate which arise at 

or after the death of the decedent or after the appointment 

of a conservator, including funeral expenses and expenses 

of administration. The term does not include estate or 

inheritance taxes, demands or disputes regarding title of a 

decedent or protected person to specific assets alleged to 

be included in the estate.

A claim includes liabilities of the decedent and liabilities of the 

estate; a beneficiary’s entitlement to a decedent’s assets pursuant to a will or a contract to make a will is not a liability of the 

decedent or the estate, and any action seeking a right of distribution under such circumstances is therefore not a claim subject to the nonclaim statute. “‘“A claim for specific property 

in the hands of the [executor] is deemed to be a claim ‘against 

the [executor]’ but not ‘against the estate’; for such property, 

though in the hands of the [executor], is not part of the estate 

and the claim for it is not a ‘debt’ of the estate.”’” Saradjian v. 

Saradjian, 25 Conn. App. 411, 418, 595 A.2d 890, 894 (1991). 

“As such, a claim for the recovery of specific property is not 

within the statute of nonclaim.” Id.

Yvonne was entitled to receive $100,000 pursuant to the 

terms of the premarital agreement. Article 4, section 4.2, of 

the premarital agreement provides in part that “[i]n the event 
- 704 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

31 Nebraska Appellate Reports

WHITE V. WHIT

Cite as 31 Neb. App. 691

of [Leonard’s] death, and if Yvonne survives him: (a) Yvonne 

shall receive One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) 

from [Leonard’s] estate (and this provision shall be treated 

as a contract to make a Will as described in Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§ 30-2351).” Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2351 (Reissue 2016) provides three ways that a contract to make a will or devise, if 

executed after January 1, 1977, can be established. As relevant 

here, it can be established by “a writing signed by the decedent 

evidencing the contract.” § 30-2351(3). The premarital agreement is a writing signed by Leonard evidencing the contract, 

and this meets the requirement of § 30-2351 for a valid contract to make a will.

As to contracts to make a will, the Nebraska Supreme Court 

has stated that “[t]he effect of a valid contract for wills is not 

to create a cause of action against the decedent’s estate, but 

instead to create a cause of action for breach of contract.” In 

re Estate of Stuchlik, 289 Neb. 673, 684-85, 857 N.W.2d 57, 

67 (2014), opinion modified on denial of rehearing, 290 Neb. 

392, 861 N.W.2d 682 (2015). In In re Estate of Stuchlik, the 

Nebraska Supreme Court cited to Pruss v. Pruss, 245 Neb. 

521, 514 N.W.2d 335 (1994), which involved two spouses 

entering into an agreement pursuant to § 30-2351 not to 

change their wills. After the husband died, the wife rewrote 

her will. Pruss, supra. The beneficiaries who were affected 

by the change filed an action in the district court seeking a 

constructive trust on the wife’s estate pursuant to the terms of 

the original will. Id. The court granted that relief and ordered 

a constructive trust be imposed on her estate pursuant to the 

terms of the original will. Id. Prior to Pruss, the Nebraska 

Supreme Court stated:

Nebraska has long recognized a cause of action based 

on a contract to make a will. Strictly speaking, there 

cannot be a decree for the specific performance of a 

contract to make a will, since such an instrument is, by 

its nature, revocable by the promisor during his life and 

cannot be made by him after his death. It has long been 
- 705 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

31 Nebraska Appellate Reports

WHITE V. WHIT

Cite as 31 Neb. App. 691

recognized that courts of equity may grant relief in a 

form that is usually equivalent to a decree of specific 

performance of a contract to leave property by will, after 

the death of the defaulting promisor, by fastening a trust 

upon his estate in the hands of those taking it with notice 

of such contract or by devise or descent.

Philp v. First Nat. Bank & Trust Co., 212 Neb. 791, 796-97, 

326 N.W.2d 48, 51-52 (1982). See, also, In re Estate of Welch, 

167 Kan. 97, 204 P.2d 714 (1949) (marriage contract determines only which of heirs will receive assets of estate and does 

not constitute claim or demand against the estate).

Accordingly, Yvonne’s action seeking the $100,000 payment 

from Leonard’s estate pursuant to the terms of the premarital 

agreement was for breach of contract and was not a “claim” as 

that term is defined by § 30-2209(4). She did not need to file 

a claim against the estate, and her failure to do so does not bar 

her from receiving the payment provided for in the premarital 

agreement, which the copersonal representatives acknowledged 

was unrevoked and remained in full force and effect as of 

Leonard’s death.

Also, Yvonne’s action regarding the Camper likewise does 

not constitute a claim subject to the nonclaim statute, because 

it involves a dispute “regarding title of a decedent . . . to specific assets alleged to be included in the estate.” § 30-2209(4). 

The Nebraska Supreme Court has held that an action involving a dispute regarding title of property allegedly belonging 

to a decedent and included in the decedent’s estate is not a 

claim. See In re Estate of Severns, 217 Neb. 803, 805, 352 

N.W.2d 865, 868 (1984) (document entitled “‘STATEMENT 

OF CLAIM’” asserted grandfather’s clock shown as asset 

of decedent’s estate belonged to claimant; referring to the 

definition of claim found in § 30-2209(4), court stated, “It is 

clear beyond question that the action here involved a dispute 

regarding title of property allegedly belonging to the decedent and included in her estate, and was not a claim”). See, 

also, Eggers v. Rittscher, 247 Neb. 648, 653, 529 N.W.2d 
- 706 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

31 Nebraska Appellate Reports

WHITE V. WHIT

Cite as 31 Neb. App. 691

741, 744 (1995) (plaintiff’s action raised dispute as to decedent’s title based on oral contract to convey parcel of land 

and was not claim as defined by § 30-2209(4) and was therefore not barred by nonclaim statute; “we read § 30-2209(4) 

to exempt from the definition of ‘claims’ disputes regarding 

equitable title”). Accordingly, the issue of ownership of the 

Camper under the terms of the premarital agreement raised 

a dispute as to title of that specific asset, thus excluding it 

as a claim as defined under § 30-2209(4). I agree with the 

majority’s analysis supporting the district court’s award of 

the Camper to Yvonne.