Opinion ID: 4207406
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: facts

Text: In November 2015, Provident Trust Company, trustee for the Trust, filed an application for direction asking whether the doctrine of ademption by satisfaction applied to Sheila’s gift to Mary, which it alleged Mary had contemporaneously acknowledged as an inheritance under § 30-2350. Attached to the application were copies of the Trust document, Sheila’s will, and Mary’s handwritten note. The trustee set forth the following factual allegations in the application. On May 30, 2007, Mary signed a handwritten note stating: “This letter acknowledges that Sheila Radford, also known as ‘mom’, is affording me $200,000 for purchase of a home and is recognized by me as inheritance. I sign here recognizing that this is true.” On June 11, Sheila wire-transferred $200,000 from her bank account to a title company, stating, “re: Mary Radford.” Then, on April 6, 2010, Sheila updated her will and amended and restated the Trust. Sheila’s will contained a “pour-over” provision for the Trust. The Trust’s residuary was to be distributed among Sheila’s four children upon her death: one-half to appellee, Brigid Radford, and one-sixth each to Mary, William Radford, and Christopher Radford. However, the Trust’s restatement made no mention of the gift to Mary. Sheila passed away on October 5, 2014. At hearings on the case, the trustee did not appear, but was represented by legal counsel. Mary appeared telephonically as a self-represented litigant. Neither party submitted any exhibits, no witnesses were sworn, nor was any testimony adduced. Instead, counsel asked the court “to take judicial notice of the record,” to which the court responded that it would “take judicial notice of the record.” Further, the trustee’s counsel made several statements which summarized the issues presented by the application, relevant legal authority, and the facts. Counsel’s statements included the following: On May 30, 2007, Mary signed a handwritten note “basically” stating: “Sheila Radford, also known as ‘Mom,’ is affording me $200,000 for purchase of a home and is recognized by me as - 752 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 297 Nebraska R eports IN RE ESTATE OF RADFORD Cite as 297 Neb. 748 an inheritance. I sign here recognizing this as true.” Counsel further stated, “There was a wire transfer. Money was given at that time. So, that actually happened.” When discussing the issue of ademption by satisfaction, counsel stated that “if she’d already gotten that $200,000,” then the court would “take it away.” Counsel stated that 3 years later, the will and Trust were “done” and that Sheila’s will contained a “pourover” provision for the Trust. The Trust’s residuary was to be distributed among Sheila’s four children upon her death: one-half to Brigid, and one-sixth each to Mary, William, and Christopher. After her statements, the trustee’s attorney added, “I don’t think there was any dispute as to the facts of the order of things or anything like that, right, Mary?” Mary replied, “No, there isn’t.” Mary then told the court about conversations with Sheila shortly before her death regarding Sheila’s intent for the Trust’s devises. The court’s order stated: “At the hearing, the court was advised that the facts are not in dispute and the sole issue is to resolve a question of law.” Nevertheless, the order’s statement of facts was more comprehensive than what counsel presented at the hearing and was buttressed by the facts contained in the application. The court determined that § 30-2350 required it to consider Mary’s contemporaneous writing acknowledgment and disregard parol evidence concerning the gift or its effect. Accordingly, the court ruled that the gift was an advancement of inheritance under § 30-2350 and reduced Mary’s share of the residuary from the Trust accordingly. Under the court’s decision, Mary was not entitled to any distribution from the Trust because a one-sixth share of the residuary was less than $200,000. Mary appealed.