- 953 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

312 Nebraska Reports

IN RE ESTATE OF SCALETTA

Cite as 312 Neb. 953

In re Estate of Filadelfo (Jack) Scaletta, deceased.

Carl Scaletta, Jr., et al., appellees, 

v. Carl Scaletta, Sr., appellant.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed November 18, 2022. No. S-22-115.

1. Jurisdiction. The question of jurisdiction is a question of law.

2. Judgments: Appeal and Error. An appellate court independently 

reviews questions of law decided by a lower court.

3. Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. It is the power and duty of an appellate court to determine whether it has jurisdiction over the matter before 

it, irrespective of whether the issue is raised by the parties.

4. Jurisdiction: Final Orders: Appeal and Error. For an appellate court 

to acquire jurisdiction of an appeal, there must be a final judgment or 

final order entered by the tribunal from which the appeal is taken.

5. Final Orders: Words and Phrases. To be final, an order must dispose 

of the whole merits of the case. When no further action of the court is 

required to dispose of a pending cause, the order is final.

Petition for further review from the Court of Appeals, 

Pirtle, Chief Judge, and Riedmann and Welch, Judges, on 

appeal thereto from the County Court for Douglas County, 

Jeffrey L. Marcuzzo, County Court Judge. Judgment of 

Court of Appeals affirmed.

M. H. Weinberg, of Weinberg & Weinberg, P.C., for appellant.

Dennis P. Lee, of Lee Law Office, for appellee Carl 

Scaletta, Jr.

Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke, 

Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

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

12/09/2022 09:04 AM CST
- 954 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

312 Nebraska Reports

IN RE ESTATE OF SCALETTA

Cite as 312 Neb. 953

Miller-Lerman, J.

NATURE OF CASE

Carl Scaletta, Sr. (Carl Sr.), appealed to the Nebraska Court 

of Appeals from the order of the Douglas County Court that 

ruled on his petition for trust administration. The Court of 

Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction pursuant 

to Neb. Ct. R. App. P. § 2-107(A)(1) (rev. 2022). We granted 

Carl Sr.’s petition for further review. Based on our reasoning 

set forth below, we agree with the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that the order from which Carl Sr. attempts to appeal was 

not a final order, and we therefore affirm the dismissal of the 

appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Filadelfo Scaletta, also known as Jack Scaletta (Jack), died 

in February 2021. Jack left a will that named his nephew, 

Carl Scaletta, Jr. (Carl Jr.), as personal representative. Letters 

of personal representative evidencing Carl Jr.’s appointment 

in the Douglas County probate division, estate case No. 

PR21-1539, are found in the record. The provisions of the 

will transferred most of Jack’s assets to the Filadelfo (Jack) 

Scaletta Revocable Living Family Trust (the Trust). Although 

created on the same day as the will, June 26, 2020, the Trust’s 

existence was separate from the will. Jack named Carl Jr. as 

trustee of the Trust, and he also named Carl Jr. as his agent 

pursuant to a power of attorney. Among the beneficiaries of 

the Trust were Carl Jr. and Carl Sr., who is Carl Jr.’s father 

and Jack’s brother.

On September 7, 2021, Carl Sr. filed a “Petition for Trust 

Administration Proceeding” with regard to the Trust. Carl 

Sr. stated that among the reasons he wished to initiate a trust 

administration action was the fact that after Jack’s death, Carl 

Jr. had transferred to the Trust two bank accounts that Carl Sr. 

asserted were designated as payable on death (POD) to him. 

Carl Sr. further stated that he was “requesting records and 

an accounting with regard to the handling of as[s]ets placed 
- 955 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

312 Nebraska Reports

IN RE ESTATE OF SCALETTA

Cite as 312 Neb. 953

in the FILADELFO (JACK) SCALETTA TRUST and then 

handled thereafter [and Carl Sr. was] requesting a declaratory judgment as to the proper disposition of assets pursuant 

to Neb. Rev. Stat. [§] 25-21,152 [(Reissue 2016)].” We note 

that the petition for trust administration was filed in the estate 

case, No. PR21-1539.

In his response to Carl Sr.’s petition, Carl Jr. conceded 

that the two accounts should have passed to Carl Sr. based 

on the POD designation and should not have been transferred 

to the Trust after Jack’s death. Carl Jr. therefore requested that 

the court grant the relief requested by Carl Sr. with respect 

to those two accounts. But Carl Jr. stated in the response 

that after Carl Sr. had filed his petition, Carl Sr. had identified four additional accounts that Carl Sr. asserted Carl Jr. 

had improperly transferred to the Trust before Jack died. 

Carl Jr. asserted that the transfers prior to Jack’s death were 

authorized and that therefore, the POD designations on those 

accounts were no longer in effect on the date Jack died. Carl 

Jr. requested that the court deny Carl Sr.’s requested relief 

with respect to all accounts other than the two that were transferred after Jack’s death.

The county court held a hearing on the issues raised by the 

pleadings regarding, inter alia, the various bank accounts transferred to the Trust before and after Jack’s death. On February 

18, 2022, the county court filed an order on what it described 

as Carl Sr.’s “Petition for Trust Administration and Request 

for Declaratory Judgment.” The court first addressed how the 

property of the Trust was to be divided among the beneficiaries under the terms of the Trust. Certain specified real property was to be divided between Carl Sr. and Carl Jr., and the 

remaining unspecified property was to be divided among three 

beneficiaries with Carl Jr. receiving 50 percent and Jack’s sister and Carl Sr. each receiving 25 percent.

The court then addressed the four bank accounts that had 

been transferred to the Trust in June and July 2020, prior 

to Jack’s death. The court determined that because those 
- 956 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

312 Nebraska Reports

IN RE ESTATE OF SCALETTA

Cite as 312 Neb. 953

accounts had been transferred prior to Jack’s death, the POD 

designations did not prevent the accounts from being properly 

transferred to the Trust. The county court further determined 

that the transfers were properly made by Carl Jr. pursuant 

to his authority under the power of attorney and received as 

trustee of the Trust and that therefore, those assets should 

remain in the Trust and be divided among the beneficiaries 

according to the provisions of the Trust.

The court then addressed the two bank accounts that had 

been transferred to the Trust in March 2021, after Jack’s 

death. The court found in its order that each account had been 

transferred to the Trust by Carl Jr. The court noted that each 

account named Carl Sr. as the POD designee, and the court 

stated that at the moment of Jack’s death, the POD designations went into effect and the accounts passed to Carl Sr. The 

court determined that the transfer of those two accounts to the 

Trust after Jack’s death was “without authorization or proper 

authority” and that therefore, the two accounts should be distributed to Carl Sr.

Based on these findings and determinations, the county 

court ordered that Carl Sr.’s motion for declaratory judgment with regard to the four accounts transferred prior to 

Jack’s death was denied and that the accounts were properly 

assets of the Trust. The county court further ordered that Carl 

Sr.’s motion for declaratory judgment with regard to the two 

accounts transferred after Jack’s death was granted, and the 

court ordered Carl Jr. as trustee to distribute the balance of 

the accounts plus interest from the Trust to Carl Sr. The county 

court finally ordered that “the Trustee of the Revocable Living 

Family Trust, Carl . . . Jr., is to provide a complete Accounting 

to all interested parties no later than March 1, 2022, unless 

previously submitted and/or accepted by the parties.”

Carl Sr. filed a notice of appeal on February 22, 2022. 

Before Carl Sr. filed a brief of appellant, the Court of Appeals 

dismissed the appeal with the following minute entry: “Appeal 

dismissed. See Neb. Ct. R. App. P. § 2-107(A)(1). County 
- 957 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

312 Nebraska Reports

IN RE ESTATE OF SCALETTA

Cite as 312 Neb. 953

court’s treatment of account transfers made prior to decedent’s 

death can be effectively considered on an appeal from the final 

judgment. See In re Estate of Rose, 273 Neb. 490, 730 N.W.2d 

391 (2007).” The Court of Appeals denied Carl Sr.’s motion 

for rehearing.

We granted Carl Sr.’s petition for further review.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

Carl Sr. claims that the Court of Appeals erred when it determined that the county court’s order was not a final, appealable 

order and when it therefore dismissed his appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction.

STANDARDS OF REVIEW

[1,2] The question of jurisdiction is a question of law. Tegra 

Corp. v. Boeshart, 311 Neb. 783, 976 N.W.2d 165 (2022). An 

appellate court independently reviews questions of law decided 

by a lower court. Heist v. Nebraska Dept. of Corr. Servs., ante

p. 480, 979 N.W.2d 772 (2022).

ANALYSIS

[3] It is the power and duty of an appellate court to determine whether it has jurisdiction over the matter before it, 

irrespective of whether the issue is raised by the parties. Tegra 

Corp. v. Boeshart, supra. Therefore, it was appropriate for the 

Court of Appeals to consider whether the county court’s order 

was final and whether it had jurisdiction over this appeal. We 

independently review the Court of Appeals’ determination that 

it lacked appellate jurisdiction.

As the first step in our analysis, it is necessary to clarify 

the nature of the proceeding that was being addressed in the 

county court’s February 18, 2022, order that Carl Sr. seeks 

to appeal. The Court of Appeals’ minute entry cites to a case 

involving a decedent’s estate proceeding, and in his argument 

in opposition to Carl Sr.’s motion for rehearing in the Court of 

Appeals, Carl Jr. relied on cases involving decedents’ estates. 

However, in his brief in support of further review, Carl Sr. 
- 958 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

312 Nebraska Reports

IN RE ESTATE OF SCALETTA

Cite as 312 Neb. 953

relies on cases involving administration of trusts, and he argues 

in part that the county court’s order that he seeks to appeal was 

not preliminary to or “interrelated to a subsequent” determination of the estate, brief for appellant in support of petition for 

further review at 6, notwithstanding the fact that the caption 

on the order sought to be appealed states that the order is “In 

the Matter of the Estate of Filadelfo (Jack) Scaletta, deceased.” 

Whether the county court’s order is related to administration of 

the Trust or whether it is a part of Jack’s estate proceeding is 

relevant to our analysis of whether the order is a final, appealable order.

Carl Sr. filed a petition for trust administration proceeding 

pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-3812 (Reissue 2016), which 

provides:

(a) The court may intervene in the administration of a 

trust to the extent its jurisdiction is invoked by an interested person or as provided by law.

(b) A trust is not subject to continuing judicial supervision unless ordered by the court.

(c) A judicial proceeding involving a trust may relate 

to any matter involving the trust’s administration, including a request for instructions and an action to declare 

rights.

On its face, Carl Sr.’s petition sought, inter alia, a declaration 

of rights under § 30-3812(c).

We further note that Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-3814 (Reissue 

2016) provides in relevant part that “the county court has 

jurisdiction over all subject matter relating to trusts”; that 

the “county court has full power to make orders, judgments, 

and decrees and take all other action necessary and proper to 

administer justice in the matters which come before it”; and 

that “[e]ach proceeding before the court is independent of 

any other proceeding involving the same trust.” In his petition, Carl Sr. stated that he was “requesting records and an 

accounting with regard to the handling of as[s]ets placed in” 

the Trust and that he was also seeking “a declaratory judgment 
- 959 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

312 Nebraska Reports

IN RE ESTATE OF SCALETTA

Cite as 312 Neb. 953

as to the proper disposition of assets” that were placed in the 

Trust. We agree with Carl Sr. that the matter initiated by Carl 

Sr. and now before us involves the Trust.

In the February 18, 2022, order, the county court stated that 

it was ruling on Carl Sr.’s petition for trust administration, 

and it specifically limited its ruling to issues that involved 

the Trust. The court found that the actions taken by Carl Jr. in 

transferring assets to the Trust were taken by him as the trustee 

of the Trust. The county court ruled on requests for declaratory judgments regarding the propriety of those transfers made 

by Carl Jr. as trustee. The county court further ordered Carl 

Jr. as “the Trustee of the . . . Trust” to submit an accounting 

and provide an accounting to interested parties. We determine, 

therefore, that the order Carl Sr. seeks to appeal involved a 

county court ruling in a trust action regarding the Trust and 

that the order was not a ruling on matters of the estate.

In the process of this case, some confusion may have been 

created in the minds of the courts and the parties, because, as 

we have noted, although the petition filed by Carl Sr. was titled 

in the name of the Trust, the matter was assigned the estate 

proceeding’s case number. In this regard, as we have noted, the 

county court’s February 18, 2022, order ruling on the petition 

for trust administration was captioned in the name of Jack’s 

estate rather than the name of the Trust.

We take this opportunity to warn against mingling separate 

trust actions with ongoing estate proceedings. Proceedings 

in a decedent’s estate are governed by statutes that are part 

of the Probate Code. See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2201 (Cum. 

Supp. 2020) (setting forth statutory sections that are part of 

Nebraska Probate Code). By contrast, trusts are governed by 

the Nebraska Uniform Trust Code, Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 30-3801 

through 30-38,110 (Reissue 2016 & Cum. Supp. 2020), and 

in particular, trust administration actions are authorized by 

§ 30-3812. Section 30-2201 does not designate the Nebraska 

Uniform Trust Code as being part of the Nebraska Probate 

Code. Trust actions and estate proceedings are currently 
- 960 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

312 Nebraska Reports

IN RE ESTATE OF SCALETTA

Cite as 312 Neb. 953

governed by separate statutory sections. Separate statutory 

paths are consistent with the historical treatment of trusts and 

estates. Historically, matters related to trusts were considered 

part of a court’s inherent chancery jurisdiction rather than a 

court’s probate jurisdiction. See In re Estate of Frerich, 120 

Neb. 462, 233 N.W. 456 (1930). In the present case, although 

issues related to the Trust might have an effect on Jack’s estate, 

the instant trust administration involved the Trust rather than 

Jack’s estate, and it was an action under the Nebraska Uniform 

Trust Code rather than an estate proceeding under the Nebraska 

Probate Code.

Because the order ruled on a trust administration matter, 

an appeal of the order is subject to § 30-3821, which provides, “Appellate review under the Nebraska Uniform Trust 

Code shall be governed by section 30-1601.” Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§ 30-1601(1) (Cum. Supp. 2020) provides in relevant part 

that “in all matters in county court arising under the Nebraska 

Uniform Trust Code, . . . appeals may be taken to the Court of 

Appeals in the same manner as an appeal from district court to 

the Court of Appeals.” We read § 30-1601(1) as incorporating 

the rules of appealability in civil matters, including Neb. Rev. 

Stat. § 25-1902 (Cum. Supp. 2020).

[4,5] We have recognized in a case involving a trust that for 

an appellate court to acquire jurisdiction of an appeal, there 

must be a final judgment or final order entered by the tribunal 

from which the appeal is taken. In re Margaret L. Matthews 

Revocable Trust, ante p. 381, 979 N.W.2d 259 (2022). To be 

final, an order must dispose of the whole merits of the case. Id.

When no further action of the court is required to dispose of a 

pending cause, the order is final. Id.

In this case, Carl Sr. filed a petition in the county court in 

which he sought two things: a declaratory judgment regarding the handling of assets transferred into the Trust and an 

accounting of the Trust. The county court entered an order in 

which it denied a declaratory judgment with respect to certain 

accounts, granted a declaratory judgment with respect to other 
- 961 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

312 Nebraska Reports

IN RE ESTATE OF SCALETTA

Cite as 312 Neb. 953

accounts, and ordered distribution of those other accounts to 

Carl Sr. The county court also ordered that in the absence of 

agreement, Carl Jr., as trustee of the Trust, submit a complete 

accounting. We read this order as reflecting the county court’s 

expectation that further action was required to completely dispose of Carl Sr.’s petition.

We determine that the order did not wholly dispose of the 

request for a Trust accounting because until that accounting 

is completed, the trust administration proceeding is not completed and the order is not yet final. See § 25-1902 (regarding 

appealability of substantial right in special proceeding).

The Court of Appeals therefore did not err when it concluded that it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed this appeal.

CONCLUSION

Based on the reasoning set forth above, we conclude that 

the county court’s February 18, 2022, ruling was not a final 

order in the trust administration proceeding and that therefore, 

the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction of this appeal. We 

affirm the order of the Court of Appeals that dismissed the 

appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Affirmed.