Opinion ID: 1910412
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: nature of remainder beneficiaries' motion

Text: Neb. Ct. R. of Pldg. in Civ. Actions 12(c) (rev. 2003) provides in part: After the pleadings are closed but within such time as not to delay the trial, any party may move for judgment on the pleadings. The remainder beneficiaries' August 15, 2005, filing is entitled Motion of Remaindermen for a Declaration of Rights and Notice, not a request for a judgment on the pleadings. Moreover, a motion for judgment on the pleadings is properly granted when it appears from the pleadings that only questions of law are presented. [5] The remainder beneficiaries admitted in their motion that there were issues of fact to be resolved but stated that [t]he factual development of the case can still proceed to an ultimate determination of rights based upon the Court's legal guidance in an expeditious manner. Thus, their characterization of the motion as a request for a judgment on the pleadings is without merit. Neither was the August 15, 2005, motion a request for a default judgment. The remainder beneficiaries did not allege that Ruth's estate had failed to file an answer, nor did they ask the court to determine that the trustee could not pay the billings for Ruth's care because of her estate's alleged default. Rather, they ask the county court to decide whether the trustee could pay the billings and, if so, what standards should be applied. Moreover, we reject the remainder beneficiaries' argument that Ruth's estate failed to answer [or] vacate the default judgment between August 23, 2005 and the date of the Order of December 22, 2005. [6] No judgment in this case was entered before December 23, 2005, and the county court had authority to combine the various requests for relief into one proceeding, [7] which consolidation the trustee specifically requested. Their motion is more properly characterized as seeking the court's direction in a matter of trust administration. The act of registering a trust gives the county court jurisdiction over the interests of all notified beneficiaries to decide issues related to any matter involving the trust's administration, including a request for instructions or an action to declare rights. [8] In exercising probate jurisdiction, a court may use equity power and principles to dispose of a matter within the court's probate jurisdiction. [9] Section 30-3812 does not limit to trustees the right to seek instructions from the court. [10] Further, Nebraska's declaratory judgment statutes allow trustees and persons interested in the administration of a trust to seek a declaration regarding any question arising in the administration of a trust. [11] Thus, without deciding the propriety of the remainder beneficiaries' motion under these circumstances, we construe their motion as a request for the court to instruct the trustee on its duties and powers. This reading of § 30-3812 is consistent with a proposed rule for the Restatement (Third) of Trusts. As of the date of this opinion, the American Law Institute has tentatively approved the 2005 draft of the Restatement (Third) of Trusts § 71 at 9 (Tent. Draft No. 4, 2005), which provides: A trustee or beneficiary may apply to an appropriate court for instructions regarding the administration or distribution of the trust if there is reasonable doubt about the powers or duties of the trusteeship or about the proper interpretation of the trust provisions. [12] Because a beneficiary includes persons with a present or future beneficial interest in a trust, vested or contingent, [13] the proposed Restatement rule also allows remainder beneficiaries to request the court to instruct a trustee on its powers and duties.