My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
202200334
LFImages
>
Deeds
>
Deeds By Year
>
2022
>
202200334
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/13/2022 3:48:10 PM
Creation date
1/13/2022 3:48:09 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DEEDS
Inst Number
202200334
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
202200334 <br />resides in the home. See Exhibit 8. Howard also revoked her power of attorney and <br />removed Defendant as a beneficiary to her estate. In her revised will, executed on April <br />10, 2018, Howard expressly stated that "I intentionally make no provision in this Will for <br />Clayton L. Green. In my opinion, he is a thief- he took advantage of me for monetary gain, <br />and should be prosecuted for abusing a vulnerable adult for financial gain." Exhibit 1. <br />Defendant contested the will and the matter was set for trial with the probate court on <br />November 5 and 6, 2020, but then continued at Defendant's request. The matter was <br />rescheduled for trial on February 4 and 5, 2021, and Defendant again requested a <br />continuance, but then withdrew that request, but did not appear at trial. He also withdrew <br />his objection to the April 10, 2018 will, and filed for an elective share instead. The County <br />Court declared the April 10, 2018 will to be valid and unrevoked and admitted to formal <br />probate by way of order entered February 4, 2021. See Exhibit 13. The County Court later <br />determined Defendant's conduct to be in bad faith and assessed attorney fees and court <br />costs in the amount of $11,594.15 against him, and rejected as untimely his request for an <br />elective share. See Exhibit 14. <br />II. ANALYSIS <br />Plaintiff claims that Defendant violated Nebraska's Uniform Power of Attorney <br />Act, breached his fiduciary duties, and/or engaged in undue influence and constructive <br />fraud. The Nebraska Supreme Court has held that "[o]ne does not exert undue influence <br />in a crowd. It is usually surrounded by all possible secrecy; it is usually difficult to prove <br />by direct evidence; and it rests largely on inferences drawn from facts and circumstances <br />surrounding the testator's life, character, and mental condition." In re Est. of Hedke, 278 <br />Neb. 727, 743-44, 775 N.W.2d 13, 28 (2009). Undue influence may be presumed if there <br />exists a confidential or fiduciary relationship, coupled with "other suspicious <br />circumstances." Id. <br />In adopting the Nebraska Uniform Power of Attorney Act ("POAA"), Neb. Rev. <br />Stat. §30-4001 et. seq., the Nebraska Legislature recognized "the manifold opportunities <br />and temptations for self-dealing that are opened up for persons holding general powers of <br />attorney." Cisneros v. Graham, 294 Neb. 83, 85-86, 881 N.W.2d 878, 881 (2016). The <br />purpose of the act is to "provide[] a simple way for people to deal with their property," but <br />7 <br />Certified Page 7 of 17 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.