Brethouwer v. Lovorn

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionPDF versionPDF version

Brethouwer v. Lovorn

Case Number
Court Number
Call Date
October 10, 2017
Case Time
9:00 AM
Case Summary

A-16-0887 and A-16-0933, In the Matter of the Estate of Brian L. Tiedeman: Sue Ann Brethouwer and Jody Clark (cross-appellants) v. Dustin Lovorn (appellant)

Lancaster County, District Judge Andrew R. Jacobson

Attorney for Appellant: James L. Haszard  (McHenry, Haszard, Roth, Hupp, Burkholder & Blomenberg, P.C., L.L.O)

Attorneys for Appellee Brethouwer: J.L. Spray and Ryan K. McIntosh (Mattson Ricketts Law Firm)

Attorney for Appellee Clark: Dale D. Dahlin (Dale D. Dahlin, P.C., L.L.O)

Probate Action: Summary Judgment-Validity of Purported Holographic Will; Supersedeas Bond

Action Taken by the Trial Court: the district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Lovorn by finding the purported holographic will was written by the decedent, but granted summary judgment in favor of Clark and Brethouwer by findingthe document failed to express sufficient testamentary and donative intent. The district court set Lovorn’s supersedeas bond at $400,000.

Assignments of Error on Appeal: Lovorn assigns that the district court erred in (1) sustaining Brethouwer and Clark's motions for summary judgment; (2) determining no genuine issue of material fact existed; (3) determining Brethouwer and Clark were entitled to a judgment as a matter of law; (4) failing to consider extrinsic evidence in determining testamentary intent of the purported holographic will; (5) overruling Lovorn's motion for summary judgment; (6) finding the purported holographic will did not contain sufficient testamentary intent; (7) setting the supersedeas bond in the amount of $400,000; (8) failing to reduce the amount of the supersedeas bond and overruling Appellant's Motion to Reconsider; and (9) setting the supersedeas bond in an amount in excess of fifty percent of Appellant's net worth.

          On cross-appeal, Brethouwer assigns the district court erred in receiving an attorney’s affidavit into evidence.

          On cross-appeal, Clark also challenges the court’s receipt of the attorney’s affidavit and further assigns error to the court’s finding that the purported holographic will was in the handwriting of the decedent. Clark also assigns the Court of Appeals erred in reducing the amount of the supersedeas bond.

Case Location
Schedule Code
Panel Text
Moore, Chief Judge, Bishop, and Arterburn, Judges