Stacey v. Meyer

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionPDF versionPDF version

Stacey v. Meyer

Additional Case Names

10:15am

Case Number
S-20-0470
Call Date
April 2, 2021
Case Time
9:00 AM
Court Number
Sarpy
Case Location
Lincoln
Court Type
District Court
Case Summary

S-20-0470 Mark A. Malousek, Successor to Eric Reese, as Special Administrator or the Estate of Molly R. Stacey, Austin J. Stacey and Courtney R. Stacey v. Steven Greg Meyer and Mark A. Meyer (Appellants)

Sarpy County District Court, Hon. George Thompson

Attorneys:  Travis M. Jacott, C.G. “Dooley” Jolly, Patrick J. Sullivan (Adams & Sullivan, PC, LLO, for Appellants); Thomas M. White (White & Jorgensen, for Appellees)

Civil: Declaratory judgment; Undue influence; Capacity

Proceedings Below: The district court determined that 1) the Appellees possessed standing; 2) the Appellees witnesses were credible; 3) Molly Stacey lacked decisional capacity with respect to the transactions in the last two weeks of her life; 4) each of the actions of Molly Stacey in the last two weeks of her life were the product of undue influence by Appellants; and 5) Appellees failed to establish the reasons for which Molly Stacey had the boat which she purchased and titled in Mark Meyer’s name, and denied the claim that he held the boat in trust.   

Issues on Appeal: Whether the district court erred when it 1) held that AJ and Courtney Stacey, heirs to the estate of Molly Stacey, had standing to challenge the validity of real and personal property transfers made by Molly on behalf of the estate; 2) held that the estate of Molly Stacey is a full party to the action because the Special Administrator orally proclaimed that the estate joins all of the claims made by the heirs at the beginning of trial; 3) applied a greater weight of the evidence standard to the heirs’ claims of undue influence and lack of mental capacity rather than a clear and convincing evidence standard; and 4) made the factual finding that Molly Stacey lacked mental capacity and that undue influence was exerted over her.

Issues on Cross-Appeal: Whether the district court erred 1) by imposing a duty on a part of the Appellees to prove the boat purchased by Molly Stacey in 2015 and titled in Mark Meyer’s name was not a gift in order to avoid the boat being held in a purchase money resulting trust; and 2) by failing to hold that Mark Meyer held title to the subject boat as trustee for the benefit of Molly Stacey.

Schedule Code
SC