Court Opinion

ID: 9374867
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-24 15:06:30.388663+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:53.663073
License: Public Domain

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
02/24/2023 09:06 AM CST

                                                        - 607 -
                               Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                                        313 Nebraska Reports
                                          IN RE HESSLER LIVING TRUST
                                                Cite as 313 Neb. 607

                               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.2d ___

                                        Filed February 24, 2023.   No. S-22-247.

                 1. Judgments: Jurisdiction. A jurisdictional issue that does not involve a
                    factual dispute presents a question of law.
                 2. 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, and this is so even
                    where neither party has raised the issue.
                 3. Jurisdiction: Final Orders: Appeal and Error. For an appellate court
                    to acquire jurisdiction of an appeal, the party must be appealing from a
                    final order or a judgment.
                 4. Final Orders: Appeal and Error. The four types of final orders which
                    may be reviewed on appeal are (1) an order which affects a substantial
                    right and which determines the action and prevents a judgment, (2) an
                    order affecting a substantial right made during a special proceeding, (3)
                    an order affecting a substantial right made on summary application in
                    an action after judgment is rendered, and (4) an order denying a motion
                    for summary judgment when such motion is based on the assertion of
                    sovereign immunity or the immunity of a government official.
                 5. Actions: Statutes. A special proceeding entails civil statutory remedies
                    not encompassed in chapter 25 of the Nebraska Revised Statutes.
                 6. Decedents’ Estates. A proceeding under the Nebraska Probate Code is a
                    special proceeding.
                 7. Final Orders: Words and Phrases. A substantial right is an essential
                    legal right, not a mere technical right.
                                   - 608 -
           Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                    313 Nebraska Reports
                      IN RE HESSLER LIVING TRUST
                            Cite as 313 Neb. 607

 8. 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.
 9. Final Orders. Substantial rights under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1902 (Cum.
    Supp. 2022) include those legal rights that a party is entitled to enforce
    or defend.
10. Final Orders: Appeal and Error. 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.
11. Summary Judgment: Final Orders. Partial summary judgments are
    usually considered interlocutory; they must ordinarily dispose of the
    whole merits of the case to be considered final.
12. Summary Judgment: Final Orders: Appeal and Error. If an order
    granting partial summary judgment affects a substantial right and is
    made during a special proceeding, it is final for the purpose of appeal.
13. Decedents’ Estates: Final Orders. A consideration regarding the final-
    ity of orders in probate cases is whether the order ended a discrete—that
    is, separate and distinct—phase of the proceedings.

  Appeal from the District Court for Scotts Bluff County:
Kris D. Mickey, Judge. Appeal dismissed.
  Cathy S. Trent-Vilim and John M. Walker, of Lamson,
Dugan & Murray, L.L.P., for appellants.
   Thomas T. Holyoke and Andrew W. Snyder, of Holyoke,
Snyder, Longoria, Reichert & Rice, P.C., L.L.O., and Jeffery
T. Peetz and Brian S. Koerwitz, of Peetz, Koerwitz & Lafleur,
P.C., L.L.O., for appellees.
  Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke, Papik, and
Freudenberg, JJ., and Pankonin, District Judge.
   Funke, J.
                   INTRODUCTION
  After Michael A. Hessler (the Decedent) died, his trust
devised his house to his girlfriend, Lori J. Miller, and
                             - 609 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  313 Nebraska Reports
                  IN RE HESSLER LIVING TRUST
                        Cite as 313 Neb. 607

bequeathed the trust’s residuary to his three children in equal
shares. The house comprised the majority of the trust’s value.
Robert Hessler, the successor trustee (the Trustee), deeded the
house to Miller, allocating all inheritance tax resulting from
the transfer to the trust’s residuary. Hessler’s children brought
an action in the county court for Lancaster County, Nebraska,
against the Trustee and Miller. Among other relief, Hessler’s
children sought a determination that one or more trust amend-
ments resulted from Miller’s undue influence or, alternatively,
that all inheritance tax obligations created by the real estate
transfer must be apportioned to and collected from Miller.
   The county court for Lancaster County transferred venue
to the county court for Scotts Bluff County, Nebraska. The
county court for Scotts Bluff County then granted Miller par-
tial summary judgment, ordering that all inheritance taxes, as
well as legal and administrative expenses, be paid out of the
Trust’s residuary. Hessler’s children subsequently voluntarily
dismissed their undue influence claim. Over 4 months after the
county court’s order granting Miller partial summary judgment,
Hessler’s children appealed. For the reasons we explain below,
we dismiss the appeal.
                        BACKGROUND
   The Decedent was the father of Heidi Shaddick, Amber
Rocha, and Brock Hessler (collectively the children). In 2006,
the Decedent executed “The Michael Hessler Living Trust”
(hereinafter the Trust). The Trust directed that the remaining
trust assets be divided into equal shares, one for each living
child and any deceased child of the decedent. The Decedent
subsequently amended the Trust four times. Per the third
amendment, the Decedent provided that before any distribu-
tion to the children, his real estate in Lancaster County (the
residence) was to be distributed to Miller as long as she was
living in the home at the time of his death. In its final form,
the Trust expresses an intention to gift Miller the residence
                              - 610 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  313 Nebraska Reports
                  IN RE HESSLER LIVING TRUST
                        Cite as 313 Neb. 607

“outright” and to designate the children, equally, as the Trust’s
residual beneficiaries.
   The Decedent died on November 23, 2020. On February
15, 2021, the Trustee registered the Trust in Scotts Bluff
County. The Trust property has been valued at $964,610.47, of
which $592,000 constitutes the value of the residence. There
is no dispute that the Decedent and Miller never married and
that, as a result, Miller’s distribution will be taxed at a higher
rate than the distributions to the children.
   On February 18, 2021, the Trustee conveyed the residence
to Miller by a deed of distribution. Based on his reading of the
Trust language, the Trustee transferred the residence to Miller
free and clear of any inheritance tax obligation and allocated
all inheritance tax arising out of the real estate transfer to the
Trust’s residuary. Section 7 of the Trust provides, in perti-
nent part:
         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 effi-
      cient and orderly administration of Settlor’s estate.
   On May 25, 2021, the children brought an action against
the Trustee and Miller in the county court for Lancaster
County. The children sought: (1) voidance of the Trustee’s
                             - 611 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  313 Nebraska Reports
                  IN RE HESSLER LIVING TRUST
                        Cite as 313 Neb. 607

conveyance of the residence to Miller or, alternatively, a con-
structive trust permitting the residence to be liquidated; (2) a
declaratory judgment declaring the parties’ rights and duties
with respect to the inheritance tax consequences of Miller’s
rights to the residence; (3) removal of the Trustee; (4) an
accounting of the Trust; (5) a finding that the Decedent was
unduly influenced by Miller to amend the Trust; and (6) mon-
etary damages against Miller for property obtained as a result
of undue influence. The Trustee moved the county court for an
order transferring venue to Scotts Bluff County where the Trust
was registered. On August 27, the county court issued an order
granting the Trustee’s motion to transfer venue.
   The children and Miller moved for partial summary judg-
ment on October 6 and 20, 2021, respectively, as to how the
inheritance tax should be allocated. In their motion, the chil-
dren asserted that the Trust was silent on the apportionment
of applicable inheritance taxes and that, pursuant to Neb. Rev.
Stat. § 77-2108 (Reissue 2018), the inheritance taxes related
to the Trust were required by law to be “equitably appor-
tioned and prorated among the persons interested in the estate
or transfer.” Miller’s motion asserted that the Trust directed
the Trustee to pay Miller’s share of inheritance tax from the
residuary of the Trust.
   On October 21, 2021, the Trustee filed an inventory, an
inheritance tax worksheet, and an application to pay tenta-
tive inheritance tax. The inheritance tax worksheet attributed
inheritance tax to the share of each beneficiary as follows:
$710.50 as to the share of each of the children and $94,627.04
as to the share of Miller. The following day, the court issued
an order approving the Trustee’s application and allowing
payment of the tentative inheritance tax. On October 25, the
children filed an objection to the court’s order allowing pay-
ment of tentative inheritance tax, motion to reconsider, and
request for bond. They emphasized that their motion for par-
tial summary judgment could have significant implications
                                   - 612 -
            Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                     313 Nebraska Reports
                      IN RE HESSLER LIVING TRUST
                            Cite as 313 Neb. 607

on which beneficiaries of the Trust are responsible for satisfy-
ing the applicable inheritance taxes. Accordingly, the children
objected to the Trustee’s “payment of the entirety of the [inher-
itance taxes] out of the residuary of the estate.”
   On November 4, 2021, the county court heard oral argu-
ments on the cross-motions for partial summary judgment.
The Trustee and Miller argued that the children “rely heav-
ily” on § 77-2108, which reliance was misplaced because
that statute was about estate taxes, not inheritance taxes. The
Trustee and Miller argued that Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-2038
(Reissue 2018) was instead the “relevant” statute. The court
received exhibits, including an affidavit by the attorney who
had drafted the Trust and its four amendments. The children
objected to the following paragraph of the affidavit on rel-
evance grounds: “In writing Section 7a of the Trust, the lan-
guage used was intended to shift the inheritance tax burden
from the beneficiaries to the Trust residuary in order to exon-
erate the beneficiaries of their tax burden.” The county court
overruled the objection and received into evidence the affida-
vit in its entirety.
   On November 19, 2021, the county court granted Miller’s
motion for partial summary judgment on the inheritance tax
issue and overruled the children’s motion. The court addition-
ally overruled the children’s objection to the court’s order
allowing tentative payment of inheritance tax, motion to recon-
sider, and request for bond. The court found the “clear lan-
guage” of the Trust “sufficiently precise” to support its hold-
ing, comparing the case to In re Estate of Shell. 1 The court
observed that the drafter’s affidavit was corroborative and
clarified the Decedent’s intention. The court also concluded
that the children’s “reliance on the language of . . . § 77-2108
is misplaced and has no application concerning payment of
inheritance taxes.”
1
    In re Estate of Shell, 290 Neb. 791, 862 N.W.2d 276 (2015).
                                  - 613 -
            Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                     313 Nebraska Reports
                      IN RE HESSLER LIVING TRUST
                            Cite as 313 Neb. 607

   On November 24, 2021, Miller filed a motion for sanctions
against the children pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 25-824 and
30-3893 (Reissue 2016), asserting that their claims were frivo-
lous and in bad faith. On December 10, 2021, and January 13,
2022, the children voluntarily dismissed, without prejudice,
their undue influence claim and their claims for removal of
the Trustee and an accounting, respectively. On March 4, the
children moved the court for an order determining appropriate
trust fund reserves for the remainder of litigation.
   On March 22, 2022, the county court issued an order deny-
ing Miller’s motion for sanctions and the children’s motion to
determine appropriate reserves. On April 6, 2022, the children
purported to appeal the November 19, 2021, order granting
Miller partial summary judgment (Apportionment Order) and
the August 27, 2021, order granting a change of venue. The
children also asserted that the county court erred in receiv-
ing the affidavit of the Decedent’s legal counsel construing
the trust language. Miller then moved the Nebraska Court of
Appeals for summary dismissal or affirmance, arguing that the
children’s first two assigned errors were untimely and that the
third failed to present a substantive legal issue. Miller’s motion
was denied. Before the Court of Appeals addressed the chil-
dren’s appeal, we moved it to our docket. 2
                 ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
   The children assign, restated, that the county court erred
in (1) receiving extrinsic evidence at the hearing on the par-
ties’ cross-motions for partial summary judgment to determine
the Decedent’s intent; (2) ordering that all inheritance taxes,
as well as legal and administrative expenses, be paid out
of the Trust’s residuary instead of proportionally among the
Trust’s beneficiaries; and (3) transferring the case to Scotts
Bluff County.
2
    See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-1106(3) (Cum. Supp. 2022).
                                  - 614 -
            Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                     313 Nebraska Reports
                      IN RE HESSLER LIVING TRUST
                            Cite as 313 Neb. 607

                  STANDARD OF REVIEW
  [1] A jurisdictional issue that does not involve a factual dis-
pute presents a question of law. 3
                           ANALYSIS
    [2,3] 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. 4 For an appellate court to
acquire jurisdiction of an appeal, the party must be appealing
from a final order or a judgment. 5 The Legislature has defined
the term “judgment” as “‘the final determination of the rights
of the parties in an action.’” 6 Conversely, every direction of a
court or judge, made or entered in writing and not included in
a judgment, is an order. 7
    [4] The four types of final orders which may be reviewed
on appeal are (1) an order which affects a substantial right
and which determines the action and prevents a judgment, (2)
an order affecting a substantial right made during a special
proceeding, (3) an order affecting a substantial right made on
summary application in an action after judgment is rendered,
and (4) an order denying a motion for summary judgment
when such motion is based on the assertion of sovereign
immunity or the immunity of a government official. 8 As
applied to this case, § 25-1902 provides that an order “made
during a special proceeding” and “affecting a substantial right”
is a final order. 9
3
    Humphrey v. Smith, 311 Neb. 632, 974 N.W.2d 293 (2022).
4
    Kingery Constr. Co. v. 6135 O St. Car Wash, 312 Neb. 502, 979 N.W.2d
    762 (2022).
5
    Ramaekers v. Creighton University, 312 Neb. 248, 978 N.W.2d 298
    (2022).
6
    Pearce v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co., 28 Neb. App. 410, 419, 945 N.W.2d
    516, 523 (2020) (quoting Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1301 (Cum. Supp. 2018)).
7
    Id.
8
    See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1902 (Cum. Supp. 2022).
9
    Cf. In re Estate of Larson, 308 Neb. 240, 953 N.W.2d 535 (2021).
                                   - 615 -
             Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                      313 Nebraska Reports
                       IN RE HESSLER LIVING TRUST
                             Cite as 313 Neb. 607

   [5,6] A special proceeding entails civil statutory reme-
dies not encompassed in chapter 25 of the Nebraska Revised
Statutes. 10 The proceedings in this case were undertaken pur-
suant to the Nebraska Probate Code, which is contained in
chapter 30 of the Nebraska Revised Statutes. A proceeding
under the Nebraska Probate Code is a special proceeding. 11
Thus, the Apportionment Order is a final order if it affected a
“substantial right” within the meaning of § 25-1902.
   [7-10] A substantial right is an essential legal right, not a
mere technical right. 12 A substantial right is affected if an order
affects the subject matter of the litigation, such as by diminish-
ing a claim or defense that was available to an appellant before
the order from which an appeal is taken. 13 It is not enough
that the right itself be substantial; the effect of the order on
that right must also be substantial. 14 Substantial rights under
§ 25-1902 include those legal rights that a party is entitled to
enforce or defend. 15 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. 16 A substantial right under § 25-1902 is not
affected when that right can be effectively vindicated in an
appeal from the final judgment. 17
   [11,12] Partial summary judgments are usually considered
interlocutory; they must ordinarily dispose of the whole mer-
its of the case to be considered final. 18 However, if an order
10
     Tegra Corp. v. Boeshart, 311 Neb. 783, 976 N.W.2d 165 (2022).
11
     In re Estate of Anderson, 311 Neb. 758, 974 N.W.2d 847 (2022).
12
     Id.
13
     Id.
14
     Id.
15
     Id.
16
     Id.
17
     See id.
18
     See, e.g., Big John’s Billiards v. State, 283 Neb. 496, 811 N.W.2d 205
     (2012).
                                      - 616 -
              Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                       313 Nebraska Reports
                        IN RE HESSLER LIVING TRUST
                              Cite as 313 Neb. 607

granting partial summary judgment affects a substantial right
and is made during a special proceeding, it is final for the pur-
pose of appeal. 19
   [13] We have addressed whether various types of probate
orders, in various contexts, were final and appealable. In such
cases, we have often held that a consideration regarding the
finality of orders in probate cases is whether the order ended a
discrete—that is, separate and distinct—phase of the proceed-
ings. 20 An order ending a discrete phase of probate proceedings
is final, but one that is merely preliminary to such an order is
not. 21 In In re Estate of Larson, 22 we approvingly cited one
commentator’s observation that in the context of multifaceted
special proceedings that are designed to administer the affairs
of a person, an order that ends a discrete phase of the proceed-
ings affects a substantial right because it finally resolves the
issues raised in that phase.
   In re Estate of Larson involved a personal representative’s
petition in county court for complete settlement of a dece­dent’s
estate. 23 The decedent’s son objected to the personal represent­
ative’s proposed schedule of distribution, alleging that it failed
to properly apportion inheritance taxes. 24 The court held a hear-
ing on the son’s objection, but ultimately dismissed it. 25 As to
inheritance taxes, the court found that
       “the inheritance taxes should be paid from the estate
       and to the extent the residuary estate is unavailable
       for payment of these expenses, the specific devisees in
19
     See id.
20
     See, e.g., In re Estate of Severson, 310 Neb. 982, 970 N.W.2d 94 (2022).
21
     See In re Estate of Larson, supra note 9.
22
     See id. (citing John P. Lenich, What’s So Special About Special Proceedings?
     Making Sense of Nebraska’s Final Order Statute, 80 Neb. L. Rev. 239
     (2001)).
23
     See id.
24
     See id.
25
     See id.
                                    - 617 -
             Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                      313 Nebraska Reports
                       IN RE HESSLER LIVING TRUST
                             Cite as 313 Neb. 607

       proportion to the share owned by [two beneficiaries]
       should be reduced for [valid administrative expenses] and
       inherit­ance tax.” 26
The son appealed the county court’s dismissal of his objection. 27
   Upon review, we noted the son’s concession that the order
dismissing his objection “gave guidance on issues of law but
did not address what each party would receive in ‘dollars and
cents.’” 28 We explained that the county court’s order decided
some of the issues relevant to the phase of the proceedings
before the court, but that that phase would not be completed
until the court entered an order disposing of the original peti-
tion. 29 Accordingly, we concluded, the order did not affect a
substantial right. 30 Because we lacked jurisdiction to address
the son’s assigned errors, we dismissed his appeal. 31
   In a comparable way, the children argue that several com-
ponents of their claims remained unresolved when the county
court entered the Apportionment Order in November 2021.
Therefore, they argue, the Apportionment Order cannot be
said to have concluded a discrete phase of the proceedings.
On this point, we agree. But the children purport to appeal
from the county court’s March 22, 2022, order addressing
Miller’s motion for sanctions and the children’s concomitant
motion to determine appropriate reserves. The children essen-
tially argue that their appeal from the court’s March 22 order
is proper because proceedings were “resolved” after it was
26
     Id. at 243, 953 N.W.2d at 538.
27
     See id.
28
     Id. at 247, 953 N.W.2d at 540.
29
     In re Estate of Larson, supra note 9.
30
     Id.
31
     See id. See, also, In re Estate of Rose, 273 Neb. 490, 495, 730 N.W.2d
     391, 395 (2007) (where determinations made by county court were merely
     “preliminary to a complete determination of the size of the augmented
     estate which was the fundamental issue before the county court,” they did
     not affect substantial right and were not appealable).
                                    - 618 -
             Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                      313 Nebraska Reports
                       IN RE HESSLER LIVING TRUST
                             Cite as 313 Neb. 607

issued. In support of their appeal from the March 22 order,
the children reference our prior case In re Guardianship &
Conservatorship of Woltemath. 32
   In In re Guardianship & Conservatorship of Woltemath,
we held that when a motion for attorney fees under § 25-824
is made prior to the judgment of the court in which the
attorney’s services were rendered, the judgment will not
become final and appealable until the court has ruled upon
that motion. 33 By analogy, the children argue that because
the Apportionment Order was not a final order, Miller’s
motion for sanctions necessarily prevented the entry of a final
order or judgment until after her motion was resolved. Thus,
they essentially argue that the Apportionment Order became
appealable once the court addressed Miller’s motion for sanc-
tions. We disagree.
   For various reasons, the rule from In re Guardianship &
Conservatorship of Woltemath is inapplicable here. First, as
Miller emphasizes, her motion for sanctions was filed after
the county court issued the Apportionment Order. Miller cor-
rectly argues that a motion for fees under § 25-824 that is
filed after a judgment does not stay the time by which an
appellant must file its notice of appeal. 34 Perhaps more impor-
tantly, however, the Apportionment Order was neither a judg-
ment nor a final order and, assuredly, the children’s voluntary
dismissal of their remaining claims without prejudice did not
turn it into either. 35 Further, the March 22, 2022, order itself
cannot be said to have finally disposed of any issues relating
32
     In re Guardianship & Conservatorship of Woltemath, 268 Neb. 33, 680
     N.W.2d 142 (2004).
33
     Id. See, also, Murray v. Stine, 291 Neb. 125, 864 N.W.2d 386 (2015).
34
     See Salkin v. Jacobsen, 263 Neb. 521, 641 N.W.2d 356 (2002) (motion for
     attorney fees under § 25-824 must be made prior to judgment of court in
     which attorney’s services were rendered).
35
     Cf. Smith v. Lincoln Meadows Homeowners Assn., 267 Neb. 849, 678
     N.W.2d 726 (2004).
                                - 619 -
          Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                   313 Nebraska Reports
                    IN RE HESSLER LIVING TRUST
                          Cite as 313 Neb. 607

to inheritance tax liability. Thus, we are not convinced that an
appeal from the March 22 order provides a vessel to obtain
our review of the children’s assigned errors.
   Notwithstanding the fact that the children’s voluntarily
dismissed claims were outstanding when the Apportionment
Order was issued and could presumably have affected inherit­
ance tax liability, the Apportionment Order cannot be said
to have disposed of a discrete phase of probate proceedings.
There is an additional element at play which necessarily pre-
cludes such a finding. On October 21, 2021, the Trustee filed
an application to pay tentative inheritance tax. On October 22,
the county court issued an order allowing payment of tenta-
tive inheritance tax pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-2018.07
(Reissue 2018). But the record before us does not include,
and the children have not appealed, a final determination of
inheritance tax.
   Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-2002(1) (Cum. Supp. 2022) states that
“[a]ny interest in property . . . shall be subject to [inheritance]
tax . . . if it shall be transferred by deed, grant, sale, or gift . . .
and . . . (b) intended to take effect in possession or enjoyment,
after his or her death . . . .” Under § 77-2018.07(1), persons
subject to inheritance tax may, “prior to the final determination
of the inheritance tax,” make a tentative payment of the tax in
order to avoid the accrual of interest or penalty on such tax.
Section 77-2018.07(1) provides that any person who desires
to pay such tentative tax shall make a written application to
the county court for an order allowing the payment of a sum
specified in such application, prior to the final determination
of the inheritance tax due. Section 77-2018.07(4) explicitly
provides that a tentative tax payment is not a final order and
may be amended, altered, or modified by subsequent order of
the court.
   The county court has jurisdiction to fix the values of
the property at issue, assess inheritance tax on the shares
of the beneficiaries of the decedent’s estate, and determine
                                     - 620 -
              Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                       313 Nebraska Reports
                        IN RE HESSLER LIVING TRUST
                              Cite as 313 Neb. 607

therefrom the inheritance tax that is owing. 36 Proceedings
for that purpose can be initiated pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat.
§ 77-2018.01 (Reissue 2018). Section 77-2018.01(1) provides
that the inherit­ance tax “imposed under sections 77-2001 to
77-2037 may be determined either (a) in any proceedings
brought under the provisions of Chapter 30, article 24 or 25, or
(b) in a proceeding instituted for the sole purpose of determin-
ing such tax.” Section 77-2018.01(2) provides that proceedings
for a determination of inheritance tax may be initiated “either
(a) by order of the county court before which any proceeding
is pending, (b) by application of the personal representative,
(c) by application of the county attorney, or (d) by application
of any person having a legal interest in the property involved
in the determination of the tax.”
   Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-2023 (Reissue 2018) provides for
appeal of the county court’s determination of inheritance tax
and refers to the same as a “final judgment or final order.”
Once appealed, a determination of inheritance tax is reviewed
for error appearing on the record. 37 Where inheritance tax has
already been paid, such litigation does not necessarily present a
moot question; Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-2018 (Reissue 2018) pro-
vides a remedy where inheritance tax has been paid in error. 38
Pursuant to § 77-2018, where an erroneous inheritance tax is
collected, the ones entitled thereto may recover it by filing an
application within 2 years. 39 Such recovery would include any
excess over the amount finally determined to be due that was
part of a tentative payment.
   In light of the applicable statutory scheme, we are inclined
to conclude that the children are attempting to obtain our
36
     See Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 77-2021 and 77-2022 (Reissue 2018). See, also,
     State ex rel. Nebraska State Bar Assn. v. Richards, 165 Neb. 80, 84
     N.W.2d 136 (1957).
37
     In re Estate of Kite, 260 Neb. 135, 615 N.W.2d 481 (2000).
38
     See In re Estate of Woolsey, 113 Neb. 218, 202 N.W. 630 (1925).
39
     See id. See, also, In re Estate of Fort, 117 Neb. 854, 223 N.W. 633 (1929).
                             - 621 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  313 Nebraska Reports
                  IN RE HESSLER LIVING TRUST
                        Cite as 313 Neb. 607

review of a discrete phase of probate proceedings regarding
inheritance tax liability that has not yet been completed in the
county court.
                         CONCLUSION
   The Apportionment Order was not a final order. An appeal
from the March 22, 2022, order addressing Miller’s motion
for sanctions is not a proper vessel to obtain our review of the
errors assigned. Thus, we lack jurisdiction to decide the merits
of this matter, and the children’s appeal is dismissed.
                                             Appeal dismissed.
   Heavican, C.J., not participating.