In re Estate of Wiggins

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionPDF versionPDF version

In re Estate of Wiggins

Case Number
Call Date
April 25, 2023
Case Time
9:00 AM
Court Number
Case Location
Court Type
County Court
Case Summary

S-22-0543 In re Matter of the Estate of Jordon R. Wiggins.  Allison Hardy o/b/o Elizabeth and Leah Wiggins (Appellant) v. Jason Wiggins (Appellee)    

Appeal from the County Court for Douglas County, Judge Sheryl L. Lohaus

Attorneys:  Jarrod D. Reece (Likes Meyerson Hatch LLC for Appellant Allison Hardy as next friend of Elizabeth Wiggins and Leah Wiggins), Brenda K. Smith and Jaynee M. Tyler (Dvork Law Group, LLC for Appellee Jason Wiggins), and James A. Tews and Adam J. Wachal (Koley Jessen, P.C., L.L.O. for Appellee Robert Wiggins, Personal Representative) filed a written waiver to be excused from submitting a brief. 

Probate:  Decree of Dissolution of Marriage and Insurance Proceeds

Proceedings below:  Pursuant to a Decree of Dissolution of Marriage, both parties were required to maintain a life insurance policy for the benefit of the children in the amount of $250,000.00.  After a hearing to determine the rights and obligations of the parties, the trial court ordered $250,000.00 into a trust for the benefit of the minor children and ordered that $120,000 be credited to Appellee.  On its own motion, the Supreme Court ordered this case to be transferred from the docket of the Court of Appeals to its docket.

Issues:  Appellant makes the following assignments of error:  1) The County Court erred in finding that $250,000 of life insurance proceeds, including the $120,000 that was paid to Elizabeth alone, had been paid to the Trust; 2) The County Court erred in holding that Jordon satisfied a portion of his obligation under the Decree by providing a policy for the benefit of one of the two minor children; 3) The County Court erred by presuming Jason “could have just accepted the life insurance proceeds,” contrary to the Decree and the Beaty line of cases; 4) The County Court erred in reforming the Settlement Agreement to conform to what it believed the parties’ intentions to have been, for reasons not advanced by Jason, contrary to Nebraska law; and 5) The County Court erred in failing to declare that Jason is required to pay the remaining $110,000 in life insurance proceeds to the Trust pursuant to the terms of the Decree, the Settlement Agreement, and Nebraska law.

Schedule Code