Opinion ID: 1734218
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: jurisdiction of probate court

Text: The personal representatives first assert that the district court erred in holding that the probate court lacked jurisdiction to confirm the sales, thus making confirmation of the putative contract a noncondition. In common-law and equity actions relating to decedents' estates, the county courts have concurrent original jurisdiction with the district courts. Iodence v. Potmesil, 239 Neb. 387, 476 N.W.2d 554 (1991); In re Estate of Steppuhn, 221 Neb. 329, 377 N.W.2d 83 (1985). In addition, Neb.Rev. Stat. § 30-2405 (Reissue 1989) provides that [t]he [county] court has jurisdiction of all proceedings to determine how decedents' estates subject to the laws of this state are to be administered, expended and distributed. Clearly, the confirmation of a sale of estate property presents a question of how an estate is to be distributed. Furthermore, Neb.Rev.Stat. § 30-2465 (Reissue 1989) provides that a personal representative may invoke the jurisdiction of the [county] court, in proceedings authorized by this [probate] code, to resolve questions concerning the estate or its administration. The comment to that section states in part: This section is intended to confer authority on the personal representative to initiate a proceeding at any time when it is necessary to resolve a question relating to administration. Whether bids at an auction for estate property are sufficient or adequate relate to the administration of the estate. Thus, a personal representative is given the right to invoke the jurisdiction of the county court, and the county court probating an estate does, in fact, possess jurisdiction to hear such questions. Therefore, the probate court here had jurisdiction to confirm or reject the bids made at the auction, and confirmation was a condition to the formation of a contract, not a noncondition, as the district court ruled.