Opinion ID: 2116910
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: removal of toedtli as personal representative

Text: On June 13, 1989, following the February 17, 1989, evidentiary hearing, the county court denied the appellant's motion to remove Toedtli as personal representative of her father's estate. Ackerman appealed this decision to the district court in a timely manner on July 6, 1989. The district court affirmed the denial. Ackerman's appeal of this decision to the Supreme Court in case No. S-89-1180 was also timely made. A proceeding under Neb.Rev.Stat. § 30-2454 (Reissue 1989) to remove a personal representative for cause is a special proceeding within the meaning of Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-1902 (Reissue 1989) and therefore is a final order and is appealable, even though it may not terminate the action or constitute a final disposition of the case. See In re Estate of Snover, 233 Neb. 198, 443 N.W.2d 894 (1989). The appellant alleged in his county court motion to remove the personal representative that Toedtli had done nothing to probate Seidler's estate from the time she was appointed personal representative on January 12, 1987, to the date the motion was filed. He claimed his mother had not filed, within 2 months of her appointment, an inventory of the property owned by Seidler at the time of his death, as required by § 30-2467, nor had she caused inheritance tax to be determined within 12 months of the decedent's death, as required by § 77-2010. In his appeal to this court, the appellant also argues that Toedtli had failed to file an accounting or to make a proposal for distribution. The latter issues will not be addressed by this court. Issues not properly presented to and passed upon by a trial court may not be raised on appeal. State v. Vance, 240 Neb. 794, 484 N.W.2d 453 (1992). The county court received evidence on the issue of removal of the personal representative at the hearing on February 17, 1989. Toedtli testified. The appellant offered no evidence. The parties stipulated that as of February 17, no inventory had been filed and no inheritance tax arising out of the estate of Seidler had been determined or paid. The reasons given why the personal representative had been unable to fulfill the duties of which Ackerman complained were that she had no funds with which to pay for appraisal of the land to be inventoried, nor did she have funds with which to pay any inheritance tax that might be determined to be due. Toedtli had no estate funds because the estate was not generating income, because the appellant had control of the only income generating asset, the land. The appellant was using the land without paying rent to the estate. In an effort to produce income, Toedtli eventually brought an action against her son for an accounting and to evict him from the land. There is no indication in the record as to the outcome of that action. The only other assets of the estate were some non-income-producing farm equipment, motor vehicles, clothing, and a houseful of furniture. The appellant had control of all those assets, as well as a joint bank account which had been in his and the decedent's names. There seems to have been a history of animus between the mother and her son. They both lived on the Seidler land, the appellant in the main house and Toedtli in a mobile home approximately a block away. They seemingly could not talk to one another. I just can't talk to my son, testified Toedtli. It turns out into an argument every time we try to get anything settled. A year ago in December I went out before Christmas and we tried to talk and it wound up in an angry argument. In June a year ago it wound up in an angry argument, plus a little roughness on top of it. She testified that she wanted to try to keep the property and the family together as her father had wanted, but that when that was not possible, she had had to take other steps. Toedtli indicated at the hearing that should she remain as personal representative she would file income tax returns and try to generate an income for the estate. She would also file an inventory and have a determination of inheritance tax. The record shows that on April 14, 1989, Toedtli did file with the county court an inventory of the estate of Seidler. There is no indication in the record whether the inheritance tax has been determined or paid. Cause for removal [of a personal representative] exists when removal would be in the best interests of the estate, or if it is shown that a personal representative... intentionally misrepresented material facts in the proceedings leading to his appointment, or that the personal representative has disregarded an order of the court, has become incapable of discharging the duties of his office, or has mismanaged the estate or failed to perform any duty pertaining to the office.... § 30-2454(b). We have held that the failure to pay claims within the time limited by the court is not cause for removal of a personal representative when there are no funds with which to pay the claims, unless it appears that absent neglect on the part of the personal representative, funds would have been available. See In re Estate of Cash D. Fuller, 124 Neb. 591, 247 N.W. 415 (1933). We have found that cause for removal of a personal representative exists when the personal representative fails to follow the court's progression order, fails to pay federal taxes, and fails to provide a proposed distribution plan. In re Estate of Snover, supra . In this case, Toedtli has not been shown to have violated any court order, nor has she been shown to have been neglectful. It appears that the appellant's unwillingness to communicate with his mother regarding the estate and his own involvement in the inability of the estate to generate income have been the cause of a substantial part of the problems suffered by the estate. In moving to eject the appellant from the property, Toedtli seems to have taken the first step in bringing the estate into a position to generate the income necessary to allow her to perform her duties as personal representative. The appellant's complaint that his mother is not acting in the best interests of her father's estate is without merit. Ackerman's assignments of error in case No. S-89-1180, in toto, are without merit. Because not all of the issues in case No. S-89-1181 had been decided by the county court, neither the district court nor this court obtained appellate jurisdiction, and case No. S-89-1181 must be dismissed. The decisions of the district court in appeal No. S-89-1180 must be affirmed. JUDGMENT IN NO. S-89-1180 AFFIRMED. APPEAL IN NO. S-89-1181 DISMISSED.