- 600 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

316 Nebraska Reports

IN RE HESSLER LIVING TRUST

Cite as 316 Neb. 600

In re Michael Hessler Living Trust.

Heidi Shaddick et al., appellants, v. Robert 

Hessler, Successor Trustee of The 

Michael Hessler Living Trust, 

and Lori J. Miller, appellees.

___ N.W.3d ___

Filed May 10, 2024. No. S-23-472.

1. Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. A jurisdictional question that does not 

involve a factual dispute is determined by an appellate court as a matter 

of law.

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

reviews questions of law decided by a lower court.

3. Venue: Appeal and Error. Where the record does not show an abuse of 

discretion, a ruling on a motion to transfer venue will not be disturbed 

on appeal.

4. Judgments: Words and Phrases. A judicial abuse of discretion requires 

that the reasons or rulings of the trial court be clearly untenable insofar 

as they unfairly deprive a litigant of a substantial right and a just result.

5. Rules of Evidence: Appeal and Error. Where the Nebraska Evidence 

Rules commit the evidentiary question at issue to the discretion of 

the trial court, the admissibility of evidence is reviewed for an abuse 

of discretion.

6. Trusts: Equity: Judgments: Evidence: Appeal and Error. Absent an 

equity question, an appellate court reviews trust administration matters 

for error appearing on the record; but where an equity question is presented, appellate review of that issue is de novo on the record. 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. 

In a review de novo on the record, an appellate court reappraises the 

evidence as presented by the record and reaches its own independent 

conclusions concerning the matters at issue.

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

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

07/10/2024 06:08 PM CDT
- 601 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

316 Nebraska Reports

IN RE HESSLER LIVING TRUST

Cite as 316 Neb. 600

7. Wills: Trusts. The interpretation of the words in a will or a trust presents a question of law.

8. 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.

9. Trusts: Appeal and Error. Appellate review under the Nebraska 

Uniform Trust Code is governed by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-1601 (Cum. 

Supp. 2022), which statute incorporates the rules of appealability in civil 

matters, including Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1902 (Cum. Supp. 2022).

10. Final Orders. Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1902 (Cum. Supp. 2022), 

a final order includes an order made during a special proceeding and 

affecting a substantial right.

11. Final Orders: Words and Phrases. A substantial right is an essential 

legal right, not a mere technical right.

12. Final Orders: Appeal and Error. A substantial right is affected if an 

order affects the subject matter of the litigation, such as by diminishing 

a claim or defense that was available to an appellant before the order 

from which an appeal is taken.

13. ____: ____. Having a substantial effect on a substantial right depends 

most fundamentally on whether the right could otherwise effectively be 

vindicated through an appeal from the final judgment.

14. Final Orders: Venue. Under Nebraska’s final order jurisprudence, an 

order transferring venue to another county in Nebraska does not affect a 

substantial right.

15. Trial: Evidence: Appeal and Error. In a civil case, the admission or 

exclusion of evidence is not reversible error unless it unfairly prejudiced 

a substantial right of the complaining party.

16. Decedents’ Estates: Taxation. The inheritance tax is a tax on the beneficiary, not the decedent.

17. Decedents’ Estates: Taxation: Wills. The burden of inheritance taxes 

will be imposed upon the individual beneficiaries of the decedent 

in accordance with the statutory pattern unless there is a clear and 

unambiguous direction to the contrary in the will or other governing 

instrument.

18. Decedents’ Estates: Taxation: Wills: Intent. A testator or settlor who 

wants to shift the burden of the inheritance tax may employ any word 

or combination of words that the testator or settlor desires, and a few 

simple words might be enough to show his or her intent. But the direction in the will, trust, or other governing instrument must be clear and 

unambiguous in order to supplant the statutory pattern. Any ambiguities 

are resolved in favor of the statutory pattern.
- 602 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

316 Nebraska Reports

IN RE HESSLER LIVING TRUST

Cite as 316 Neb. 600

Appeal from the County Court for Scotts Bluff County: Kris 

D. Mickey, Judge. Affirmed.

Cathy S. Trent-Vilim, Daniel J. Waters, and John M. Walker, 

of Lamson, Dugan & Murray, L.L.P., for appellants.

Andrew W. Snyder and Thomas T. Holyoke, of Holyoke, 

Snyder, Longoria, Reichert & Rice, P.C., L.L.O., and Jeffery T. 

Peetz and Allyson G. Rafferty, of Peetz, Koerwitz & Lafleur, 

P.C., L.L.O., for appellees.

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

Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.

Cassel, J.

INTRODUCTION

A decedent’s trust provided for payment of inheritance taxes 

“from this trust,” devised a house “outright” to the decedent’s 

girlfriend, and bequeathed the trust’s residuary to his three 

children. After the trustee deeded the house to the girlfriend 

and allocated all inheritance tax to the trust’s residuary, the 

children sued. Because we agree with the county court that the 

trust’s language was sufficiently clear to supplant the statutory 

pattern that would otherwise presume equitable apportionment 

of inheritance tax, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

This case involving the “The Michael Hessler Living Trust” 

(the trust) is before us again following our dismissal of the first 

appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 1 After identifying the parties 

and discussing the trust and its registration, we set forth the 

relevant procedural background leading to the instant appeal.

Parties

Michael A. Hessler (the decedent) was the settlor of the 

trust. He had three children: Heidi Shaddick, Amber Rocha, 

1 See In re Hessler Living Trust, 313 Neb. 607, 985 N.W.2d 589 (2023).
- 603 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

316 Nebraska Reports

IN RE HESSLER LIVING TRUST

Cite as 316 Neb. 600

and Brock Hessler (collectively the children). The decedent 

died in November 2020.

In 2009 or 2010, the decedent began a romantic relationship 

with Lori J. Miller. The decedent and Miller never married, 

but they were living together at the time of his death.

Robert Hessler is the successor trustee (trustee) of the trust.

Trust and Amendments

In 2006, the decedent executed the trust. According to the 

trust’s language, the decedent was “desirous of establishing a 

trust for the benefit of his children, issue and himself.”

The focus of this appeal is paragraph 7 of the trust. The first 

two subparts of that paragraph provided for the payment of 

taxes, expenses, and debts. The latter two subparts addressed 

distribution of personal property, income, and principal. The 

paragraph stated:

7. USAGE OF TRUST PROPERTY ON AND AFTER 

SETTLOR’S DEATH.

a. PAYMENT OF TAXES. The Successor Trustee shall 

pay from this trust all inheritance and estate taxes due by 

reason of the Settlor’s death irrespective of whether such 

taxes are in respect of the trust property.

b. PAYMENT OF EXPENSES AND DEBTS. The 

Successor Trustee shall pay the funeral and related 

expenses of the Settlor together with the expenses of 

last illness not covered by [M]edicare or insurance. 

Additionally, the Successor Trustee may pay such of 

the debts and obligations of the Settlor as the Successor 

Trustee determines appropriate under the circumstances. 

In further addition, the Successor Trustee may pay the 

expenses of administering Settlor’s estate, it being the 

express intention of the Settlor that the Successor Trustee 

take such actions as are appropriate to bring about an 

efficient and orderly administration of Settlor’s estate.

c. DISTRIBUTION OF TANGIBLE PERSONAL 

PROPERTY. The Successor Trustee shall distribute 
- 604 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

316 Nebraska Reports

IN RE HESSLER LIVING TRUST

Cite as 316 Neb. 600

items of tangible personal property pursuant to and in 

accordance with a list prepared by the Settlor and delivered to the Successor Trustee, or found among Settlor’s 

documents and papers after death, indicating certain 

items of such property and the person to whom each item 

is to be distributed. In the event no list is found or in 

the event there are items of such property not mentioned 

on a list, then such property or the omitted items shall 

pass as part of the remaining trust property disposed 

of hereinbelow.

d. DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME AND PRINCIPAL.

The Successor Trustee shall divide the remaining trust 

property (including any additions thereto, any income 

added to principal and any undistributed income) into 

equal shares, one for each of the Settlor’s then living 

children and any deceased child of the Settlor who has 

left then living issue. Each share so created shall be held, 

administered and disposed of under the following terms 

and provisions[.]

The decedent subsequently amended the trust four times. 

Each amendment included a paragraph “1.” containing the 

modification and a paragraph “2. AFFIRMATION OF 

TRUST” stating that “[t]he Trust is hereby ratified and 

affirmed as amended herein.” Only the third amendment, 

made in August 2017, modified paragraph 7. That amendment 

provided that the decedent’s real estate in Lancaster County, 

Nebraska (the residence), be distributed to Miller. The amendment stated:

1. CHANGE IN DISPOSITIVE PROVISIONS. Prior 

to making any distributions in accordance with paragraph 

7.d. of the Trust Agreement, Settlor’s home . . . owned by 

this trust shall be distributed outright to . . . Miller but 

only in the event that she is living in such home at the 

time of Settlor’s death. The legal description of the home 

is . . . Lancaster County, Nebraska.
- 605 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

316 Nebraska Reports

IN RE HESSLER LIVING TRUST

Cite as 316 Neb. 600

Registration of Trust and Conveyance

Approximately 3 months after the decedent’s death, the 

trustee registered the trust in Scotts Bluff County, Nebraska. 

According to the trust registration statement, Scotts Bluff 

County was the county of the trustee’s residence, the principal 

place of administration of the trust, and the location of the 

records pertaining to the trust.

Days after registering the trust, the trustee conveyed the 

residence to Miller by a deed of distribution.

Tentative Inheritance 

Tax Determination

According to an inventory, the trust property was valued 

at $964,610.47. Of that amount, $592,000 constituted the fair 

market value of the residence. Chapter 77, article 20, of the 

Nebraska Revised Statutes imposes inheritance taxes on a 

beneficiary’s distribution based on the beneficiary’s relationship to the decedent. 2 Because the decedent and Miller never 

married, her distribution is taxed at a higher rate than the distributions to the children. 3 According to a tentative inheritance 

tax determination, the tax attributable to property received by 

Miller was $94,627.04, while the tax attributable to property 

received by each of the children was $710.50.

Petition to Remove Trustee 

and for Other Relief

The children filed a petition against the trustee and Miller 

in the county court for Lancaster County. They alleged that 

venue was proper in Lancaster County because it was where 

the residence was located, where Miller resided, and where 

the decedent resided at the time of his death. Among other 

relief, the children requested the removal of the trustee, the 

setting aside of the real estate transfer, and a declaratory 

judgment declaring the parties’ rights and duties with respect 

2 In re Estate of Larson, 311 Neb. 352, 972 N.W.2d 891 (2022).

3 See Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 77-2004 and 77-2006 (Reissue 2018).
- 606 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

316 Nebraska Reports

IN RE HESSLER LIVING TRUST

Cite as 316 Neb. 600

to the inheritance tax consequences of Miller’s rights to the 

residence. The children alleged that a proportionate share 

of the inheritance tax and administrative expenses attributable 

to the residence’s value should be paid out of Miller’s share 

of the trust.

Motion to Transfer Venue

The trustee moved to transfer venue to Scotts Bluff County. 

The motion stated that the trust was registered in Scotts Bluff 

County and that the trustee resided in that county.

The county court for Lancaster County sustained the motion 

and transferred venue to the county court for Scotts Bluff 

County. The court reasoned that the essence of the children’s 

petition was an effort to challenge the validity of amendments 

to the trust and certain actions by the trustee and not a recovery 

of real property.

Partial Summary Judgment

The children moved for partial summary judgment. They 

asserted that the trust did not provide specific direction 

regarding the apportionment of applicable inheritance taxes 

and that such taxes should be equitably apportioned among 

the persons interested in the estate. Miller also moved for 

partial summary judgment. She asserted that the decedent 

directed the trustee to pay Miller’s share of the inheritance tax 

from the residuary of the estate.

The court received evidence during a hearing on the motions 

for partial summary judgment. The trustee offered the affidavit of the attorney who drafted the trust and its amendments. 

The children objected to a paragraph of the affidavit, which 

they asserted was an attempt to enter parol evidence to interpret a specific provision of the trust. The court overruled the 

objection as to admissibility and received the affidavit into 

evidence. The court also received Miller’s affidavit, which 

established that she had lived with the decedent in the residence since its purchase in 2014.
- 607 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

316 Nebraska Reports

IN RE HESSLER LIVING TRUST

Cite as 316 Neb. 600

Subsequently, the court entered an order (apportionment 

order) granting Miller’s motion for partial summary judgment 

on the inheritance tax issue and denied the children’s motion. 

The court reasoned that the trust, together with the third 

amendment, was “sufficiently clear to supplant the statutory 

inheritance tax pattern . . . that would otherwise presume equitable apportionment of the inheritance tax obligation among 

the various trust beneficiaries.” The court stated that “[t]he 

fact that an inheritance tax expense may be disproportionately 

attributable to trust assets received by one beneficiary over 

another . . . is immaterial in this case.”

First Appeal

The children purported to appeal from the apportionment 

order and the order transferring venue. We determined that the 

apportionment order was not a final order. 4 We stated that the 

record did not include a final determination of inheritance tax. 

Thus, we dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Subsequent Proceedings

The trustee filed a petition for final determination of inheritance tax, approval of final accounting, and approval of attorney and trustee fees, along with an inheritance tax worksheet. 

The children objected to the proposed final inheritance tax 

submission.

On May 25, 2023, the court entered an order. It accepted 

and approved the inheritance tax worksheet for final determination of inheritance tax but changed the trustee fee. The 

court assessed inheritance tax of $734.10 against each of the 

children and of $92,939.90 against Miller. The court readopted 

its earlier apportionment order concerning the burden of the 

payment of the tax.

On June 22, 2023, the children appealed. According to 

the notice of appeal, they sought to challenge the May 25 

4 See In re Hessler Living Trust, supra note 1.
- 608 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

316 Nebraska Reports

IN RE HESSLER LIVING TRUST

Cite as 316 Neb. 600

order, the apportionment order, and “[s]uch other interlocutory 

orders as deemed necessary or appropriate.” We moved the 

appeal to our docket. 5

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

The children separately assign, to two different courts, 

three errors, which we reorder and restate. They allege that 

the county court for Lancaster County erred in transferring 

venue to Scotts Bluff County. The children allege that the 

county court for Scotts Bluff County erred in receiving extrinsic evidence to determine the decedent’s intent and in concluding that all inheritance taxes were to be paid out of the 

residue of the estate instead of proportionally by the respective beneficiaries. The trustee and Miller assert in their briefs 

that we lack jurisdiction over the children’s venue assignment 

of error.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1] A jurisdictional question that does not involve a factual 

dispute is determined by an appellate court as a matter of law. 6

[2] An appellate court independently reviews questions of 

law decided by a lower court. 7

[3] Where the record does not show an abuse of discretion, 

a ruling on a motion to transfer venue will not be disturbed 

on appeal. 8

[4] A judicial abuse of discretion requires that the reasons 

or rulings of the trial court be clearly untenable insofar as 

they unfairly deprive a litigant of a substantial right and a 

just result. 9

[5] Where the Nebraska Evidence Rules commit the evidentiary question at issue to the discretion of the trial court, 

5 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-1106(3) (Cum. Supp. 2022).

6 Clason v. LOL Investments, ante p. 91, 3 N.W.3d 94 (2024).

7 Id.

8 Bloedorn Lumber Co. v. Nielson, 300 Neb. 722, 915 N.W.2d 786 (2018).

9 In re Estate of Forgey, 298 Neb. 865, 906 N.W.2d 618 (2018).
- 609 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

316 Nebraska Reports

IN RE HESSLER LIVING TRUST

Cite as 316 Neb. 600

the admissibility of evidence is reviewed for an abuse of 

discretion. 10

[6] Absent an equity question, an appellate court reviews 

trust administration matters for error appearing on the record; 

but where an equity question is presented, appellate review 

of that issue is de novo on the record. 11 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. 12 In a review de novo on the record, an appellate court reappraises the evidence as presented by the record 

and reaches its own independent conclusions concerning the 

matters at issue. 13

[7] The interpretation of the words in a will or a trust presents a question of law. 14

ANALYSIS

The primary issue presented in this appeal is the apportionment of inheritance taxes. But before resolving that issue, we 

first dispose of a jurisdictional argument and then address the 

children’s venue and evidentiary challenges.

Jurisdiction

[8] 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. 15 The trustee and Miller 

contend that we lack jurisdiction to consider the children’s 

10 In re Trust Created by Isvik, 274 Neb. 525, 741 N.W.2d 638 (2007).

11 In re Henry B. Wilson, Jr., Revocable Trust, 300 Neb. 455, 915 N.W.2d 50 

(2018).

12 In re William R. Zutavern Revocable Trust, 309 Neb. 542, 961 N.W.2d 807 

(2021).

13 In re Margaret L. Matthews Revocable Trust, 312 Neb. 381, 979 N.W.2d 

259 (2022).

14 In re Estate of Larson, supra note 2.

15 Clason v. LOL Investments, supra note 6.
- 610 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

316 Nebraska Reports

IN RE HESSLER LIVING TRUST

Cite as 316 Neb. 600

venue challenge, because the children did not file a notice of 

appeal within 30 days after entry of the order transferring the 

case to Scotts Bluff County. They rely on the rule that where 

a notice of appeal is not filed within 30 days after the entry of 

a final order, an appellate court obtains no jurisdiction to hear 

an appeal from that order, and an attempt to appeal from that 

order must be dismissed. 16

[9-13] Whether this court has jurisdiction to address the 

merits of the venue challenge turns on whether the order 

transferring venue was a final order. Appellate review under 

the Nebraska Uniform Trust Code is governed by Neb. Rev. 

Stat. § 30-1601 (Cum. Supp. 2022), which statute incorporates 

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

Stat. § 25-1902 (Cum. Supp. 2022). 17 Under § 25-1902, a final 

order includes an order made during a special proceeding and 

affecting a substantial right. A substantial right is an essential 

legal right, not a mere technical right. 18 A substantial right is 

affected if an order affects the subject matter of the litigation, 

such as by diminishing a claim or defense that was available to an appellant before the order from which an appeal 

is taken. 19 It is not enough that the right itself be substantial; 

the effect of the order on that right must also be substantial. 20

Having a substantial effect on a substantial right depends 

most fundamentally on whether the right could otherwise 

effectively be vindicated through an appeal from the final 

judgment. 21 A substantial right under § 25-1902 is not affected 

when that right can be effectively vindicated in an appeal from 

the final judgment. 22

16 See Seid v. Seid, 310 Neb. 626, 967 N.W.2d 253 (2021).

17 See In re Estate of Scaletta, 312 Neb. 953, 981 N.W.2d 568 (2022).

18 In re Hessler Living Trust, supra note 1.

19 Id.

20 Id.

21 Id.

22 Id.
- 611 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

316 Nebraska Reports

IN RE HESSLER LIVING TRUST

Cite as 316 Neb. 600

[14] Generally, an order changing or declining to change 

venue is interlocutory and not directly appealable. 23 In considering whether a ruling on venue affects a substantial right, 

we determine that venue does not affect the subject matter 

of the litigation and that it can be effectively reviewed following a judgment. We conclude that under our final order 

jurisprudence, an order transferring venue to another county 

in Nebraska does not affect a substantial right. Thus, the 

children properly waited until entry of a final order or judgment to challenge the venue order. Having determined that 

we have jurisdiction, we proceed to consider the merits of the 

venue challenge.

Venue

The children allege that the county court for Lancaster 

County abused its discretion in transferring venue to Scotts 

Bluff County. Relying on Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-401 (Reissue 

2016), the children contend that an action involving real 

estate must be brought in the county where the real estate is 

situated. But this was not an action “to recover damages for 

any trespass upon or any injury to real estate.” 24 In sustaining 

the motion to transfer venue, the court stated: “It is apparent 

that the essence of the petition is not a recovery of real property. Rather, the essence of the petition is an effort to challenge the validity of certain Amendment(s) to the Decedent’s 

Trust and certain actions by the Trustee.” We agree.

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-3815 (Reissue 2016) specifically 

addresses venue for a judicial proceeding involving a trust. It 

provides, “If a trust is registered in Nebraska, unless the registration has been released, the venue is in the court in which 

the trust is registered, even if there is no trustee.” 25 Because 

23 See, 4 Am. Jur. 2d Appellate Review § 132 (2018); 4 C.J.S. Appeal and 

Error § 171 (2019); 92A C.J.S. Venue § 274 (2021). See, also, Romanchik 

v. Lucak, 44 Ohio App. 3d 215, 542 N.E.2d 699 (1988).

24 § 25-401.

25 § 30-3815(c).
- 612 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

316 Nebraska Reports

IN RE HESSLER LIVING TRUST

Cite as 316 Neb. 600

the trustee registered the trust in Scotts Bluff County, venue 

was proper there. We conclude that the court did not abuse its 

discretion by transferring venue to Scotts Bluff County.

Admitting Extrinsic Evidence

The children next contend that the court erred in receiving 

the affidavit from the attorney who drafted the trust and in 

relying upon it to corroborate and clarify the decedent’s intent. 

We have stated that unless a document is ambiguous, parol evidence cannot be used to vary its terms. 26 We disagree that the 

court relied on the affidavit.

The court’s order showed that it based its decision on the 

language of the trust and an amendment. The first paragraph 

of the court’s findings quoted the language of paragraph 7.a. 

of the trust, considered that together with the language of the 

third amendment, and stated that such language was “sufficiently clear to supplant the statutory inheritance tax pattern 

. . . that would otherwise presume equitable apportionment 

of the inheritance tax obligation among the various trust beneficiaries.” Then, the third paragraph of the court’s findings 

stated that “[t]he clear language of the document, corroborated 

by the affidavit of the attorney who crafted the relevant language of the trust, sufficiently clarifies the Settlor’s specific 

desire that the source of payment for inheritance taxes was to 

be ‘this trust,’ . . . .” The order shows that the court referenced 

the affidavit to buttress its conclusion, which it based on the 

language of the trust and amendments.

[15] To the extent the court erred in receiving the attorney’s 

affidavit, the error was harmless. In a civil case, the admission or exclusion of evidence is not reversible error unless 

it unfairly prejudiced a substantial right of the complaining 

party. 27 Here, the court’s findings demonstrate that it based its 

decision on the language of the trust and amendment and not 

on the affidavit.

26 In re William R. Zutavern Revocable Trust, supra note 12.

27 In re Estate of Walker, 315 Neb. 510, 997 N.W.2d 595 (2023).
- 613 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

316 Nebraska Reports

IN RE HESSLER LIVING TRUST

Cite as 316 Neb. 600

Apportionment of Inheritance Taxes

[16,17] The inheritance tax is a tax on the beneficiary, 

not the decedent. 28 The burden of inheritance taxes will be 

imposed upon the individual beneficiaries of the decedent in 

accordance with the statutory pattern unless there is a clear 

and unambiguous direction to the contrary in the will or other 

governing instrument. 29 Generally, the fiduciary charged with 

distributing a decedent’s property deducts the inheritance taxes 

from any property distributed or collects the tax from the legatee or the person entitled to such property. 30

[18] Notwithstanding the default provisions of chapter 77, 

article 20, of the Nebraska Revised Statutes, a decedent’s 

will or any written instrument executed inter vivos by the 

decedent may provide direction for the apportionment of the 

taxes assessed upon property subject to Nebraska inheritance 

tax. 31 A testator or settlor who wants to shift the burden of 

the inheritance tax may employ any word or combination of 

words that the testator or settlor desires, and a few simple 

words might be enough to show his or her intent. 32 But the 

direction in the will, trust, or other governing instrument must 

be clear and unambiguous in order to supplant the statutory 

pattern. 33 Any ambiguities are resolved in favor of the statutory pattern. 34

In In re Estate of Shell,

 35 we considered whether the language in a will supplanted the statutory pattern regarding 

inheritance taxes. The paragraph at issue there contained 

two sentences. The first sentence authorized the personal 

28 In re Estate of Larson, supra note 2.

29 Id.

30 Id.

31 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-2038 (Reissue 2018).

32 See In re Estate of Larson, supra note 2.

33 See id.

34 Id.

35 In re Estate of Shell, 290 Neb. 791, 862 N.W.2d 276 (2015).
- 614 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

316 Nebraska Reports

IN RE HESSLER LIVING TRUST

Cite as 316 Neb. 600

representative “‘to pay from the principal of my residuary 

estate . . . , all of my debts [and] all of the expenses of the 

administration of my estate.’” 36 The second sentence authorized the personal representative “‘to pay from my probate 

estate, without contribution or reimbursement from any person, all inheritance, legacy or estate taxes . . . .’” 37

In In re Estate of Shell, we concluded that the paragraph 

clearly showed an intent to treat inheritance taxes as an 

expense of the estate. We noted that the second sentence 

expressly referred to inheritance taxes and directed that they 

be paid from the probate estate, and we stated that courts 

generally have determined that language directing payment 

of estate and inheritance taxes exonerates the beneficiaries of 

their tax burden. We further observed that the second sentence 

immediately followed a direction in the first sentence to pay 

the testator’s debts, expenses of his funeral, and expenses of 

the administration of his estate. We reasoned, “Coupling a 

direction to pay estate and inheritance taxes with a direction 

to pay the testator’s debts, funeral expenses, and administration costs shows the testator’s intent to pay the taxes off 

the top.” 38

Similar reasoning applies here. Paragraph 7.a. instructed the 

trustee to “pay from this trust all inheritance and estate taxes,” 

whether on trust property or not. The next subpart, paragraph 

7.b., directed the trustee to pay expenses and debts. Like in 

In re Estate of Shell, these instructions to pay the taxes and 

debts demonstrated the decedent’s intent that the taxes be 

paid “off the top.” 39 Further, the third amendment specified 

that the residence be “distributed outright” to Miller and that 

it be done before dividing the remaining trust property. We 

conclude the language of the trust clearly showed that the 

36 Id. at 793, 862 N.W.2d at 278.

37 Id.

38 Id. at 796, 862 N.W.2d at 280 (internal quotation marks omitted).

39 Id.
- 615 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

316 Nebraska Reports

IN RE HESSLER LIVING TRUST

Cite as 316 Neb. 600

decedent wished to shift the burden of the inheritance tax from 

the beneficiaries.

The children contend that the trust and amendments require 

that all the trust’s assets—not just the residue—be used to pay 

the taxes described in the trust. We do not believe that this is 

consistent with our decision in In re Estate of Shell, nor that it 

is a reasonable interpretation of the documents here. We therefore affirm the decision of the county court.

CONCLUSION

Having determined that the order transferring venue to a 

different county in Nebraska was not a final order and that 

the challenge was properly presented in this appeal, we find 

no abuse of discretion in transferring venue to the county 

where the trust was registered. We further find no reversible 

error regarding the children’s evidentiary challenge. Because 

we agree with the county court that the trust’s language provided clear direction that inheritance taxes be paid by the trust 

rather than by the individual beneficiaries pro rata, we affirm 

its decision.

Affirmed.