In re Estate of Farrington

- 716 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
IN RE ESTATE OF FARRINGTON
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 716
In re Estate of Brenda J. Farrington, deceased.
Teresa L. Hauck, Personal Representative of the
Estate of Brenda J. Farrington, appellee,
v. Ramona Farrington, appellant.
___ N.W.3d ___
Filed June 24, 2025. 	No. A-24-494.
1. Summary Judgment: Appeal and Error. An appellate court reviews a
lower court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the record in
the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and drawing all reason-
able inferences in that party’s favor.
2. ____: ____. An appellate court will affirm a lower court’s grant of sum-
mary judgment if the pleadings and admitted evidence show that there is
no genuine issue as to any material facts or as to the ultimate inferences
that may be drawn from the facts and that the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.
3. Decedents’ Estates: Appeal and Error. An appeal from the county
court’s allowance or disallowance of a claim in probate will be heard as
an appeal from an action at law. In reviewing a judgment of the probate
court in a law action, an appellate court does not reweigh evidence, but
considers the evidence in the light most favorable to the successful party
and resolves evidentiary conflicts in favor of the successful party, who is
entitled to every reasonable inference deducible from the evidence. The
probate court’s factual findings have the effect of a verdict and will not
be set aside unless clearly erroneous.
4. Judgments: Appeal and Error. On a question of law, an appellate court
is obligated to reach a conclusion independent of the determination
reached by the court below.
5. Statutes: Appeal and Error. Statutory interpretation is a question of
law, which an appellate court resolves independently of the trial court.
6. Decedents’ Estates: Claims: Limitations of Actions. In a probate
action, the question of whether a dispute with the estate is a “claim,”
as that term is defined in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2209(4) (Reissue 2016),
Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
10/14/2026 07:30 AM CDT

- 717 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
IN RE ESTATE OF FARRINGTON
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 716
is a question of law that must be addressed before determining whether
such claim was timely presented pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2485
(Reissue 2016).
7. Decedents’ Estates: Claims. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2209(4) (Reissue
2016) excludes a dispute regarding the title of a house owned by a
decedent prior to his or her death from the definition of a claim against
an estate.
8. ____: ____. An investment account owned by a decedent prior to his
or her death that explicitly provides for named beneficiaries to receive
the funds in the account at the time of death is a nonprobate asset, as
defined by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2715 (Cum. Supp. 2024), which is sepa-
rate and apart from a decedent’s estate.
Appeal from the County Court for Lancaster County: Holly
J. Parsley, Judge. Vacated and remanded with directions.
Cathy S. Trent-Vilim, John M. Walker, and Ellen K. Geisler,
of Lamson, Dugan & Murray, L.L.P., for appellant.
J.L. Spray and Raymond P. Daugherty, of Mattson Ricketts
Law Firm, L.L.P., for appellee.
Riedmann, 	Chief 	Judge, 	and 	Bishop 	and 	Arterburn,
Judges.
Arterburn, Judge.
INTRODUCTION
This appeal involves a dispute between the decedent’s step-
daughter, Ramona Farrington, and the personal representative
of the decedent’s estate, Teresa L. Hauck, over the ownership
of a residence located in Lancaster County, Nebraska, and the
funds in an investment account owned by the decedent prior
to her death. Following a hearing, the county court sustained
a summary judgment motion filed by Hauck. In its order, the
court explained that Ramona filed her claim against the estate
out of time, pursuant to the provisions of Neb. Rev. Stat.
§ 30-2485 (Reissue 2016). As such, the county court deter-
mined that the claim was barred. Because we conclude that
the disputes over the residence and the investment account

- 718 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
IN RE ESTATE OF FARRINGTON
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 716
did not constitute claims against the estate subject to the pro-
visions of § 30-2485, we vacate the order of the county court
granting Hauck’s motion for summary judgment on the basis
that Ramona’s claims were filed out of time. We remand the
cause with directions as set forth below.
BACKGROUND
Ramona is the daughter of Allen Farrington. When Ramona
was a teenager, her father married Brenda J. Farrington. Hauck
is Brenda’s daughter, and thus, Hauck is Allen’s stepdaughter
and Ramona’s stepsister. Hauck was also a minor child when
Brenda and Allen married. As such, Ramona and Hauck grew
up together as sisters in the same household.
In January 2016, Allen died. After his death, there was some
disagreement between Brenda, Ramona, and Allen’s other bio-
logical daughter regarding the disposition of his assets. In the
months after Allen’s death, Ramona and Brenda met with an
attorney who was assisting with the distribution of the assets.
After this meeting, on June 20, 2016, Brenda wrote a letter to
Ramona regarding the division of Allen’s assets. As is relevant
to this appeal, Brenda discussed in the letter the disposition
of the house she and Allen shared: “I want to assure you that
I have made provision in my will that you and [Hauck] will
split the house upon my death and [Hauck] will be able to pur-
chase your interest following my death. I will not change that
provision going forward . . . .” At the close of the June 2016
letter, Brenda wrote:
Please acknowledge this letter lists the matters we dis-
cussed in [the attorney’s] office by signing below. Then,
please e-mail the signed letter to me with a copy to [the
attorney]. I understand that you are waiting for this letter
before you will sign the settlement agreement drafted by
[the attorney].
Brenda signed the letter, and 2 days later, on June 22, Ramona
signed her name under the terms “Reviewed and Accepted.”
On June 23, 2016, the day after Ramona indicated that
she had reviewed and accepted the terms of Brenda’s letter,

- 719 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
IN RE ESTATE OF FARRINGTON
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 716
Ramona signed a family settlement agreement regarding the
division 	of Allen’s 	assets 	between 	Brenda, 	Ramona, 	and
Allen’s other daughter. The majority of the agreement dealt
with how to divide “various checks” written to Allen before
his death. Ultimately, the value of the checks was distributed
equally between Ramona and Allen’s other daughter. The
agreement also gave Ramona authority to distribute certain
personal property acquired by Allen prior to 1987. The agree-
ment provided: “The remainder of Allen Farrington’s estate
[was to be] distributed to Brenda, as her sole property to do
with as she wishes.”
Notably, the family settlement agreement was silent regard-
ing the residence of Brenda and Allen, which was the subject
of the June 20, 2016, letter. In fact, the agreement did not
reference the June 20 letter at all. And, paragraph 12 of the
agreement provided in part:
This Family Settlement Agreement represents a full and
complete understanding and agreement among the par-
ties, all of whom are the sole heirs of Allen R. Farrington,
deceased, and the Personal Representative of his estate,
and full and complete settlement of the estate, with
the sole exception of the determination and payment of
inheritance tax, which shall be the responsibility of the
Personal Representative.
At the time of his death, Allen also owned an investment
account that listed Brenda as the primary beneficiary and
Ramona as the contingent beneficiary. Upon Allen’s death,
the proceeds from the investment account were transferred
to Brenda, who opened her own investment account. Shortly
thereafter, in March 2016, Brenda designated Ramona as a
50-percent beneficiary of her investment account.
On June 27, 2016, Brenda executed her own will. This
2016 will devised the house previously shared by Brenda and
Allen “in equal shares” to Ramona and Hauck. The will gave
Hauck the right to purchase Ramona’s interest in the house
for a price equal to the lesser of 50 percent of the 2016 real

- 720 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
IN RE ESTATE OF FARRINGTON
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 716
estate tax assessed value or the fair market value at the time of
Brenda’s death. According to the will, the 2016 tax assessed
value for the house was $277,600. The will also provided that
Ramona would need to pay all expenses related to Hauck’s
purchase of Ramona’s interest in the house, including attorney
fees, filing fees, and related costs, and that the purchase must
be completed within 12 months of Brenda’s death or the gift
to Ramona would lapse.
On September 10, 2020, Brenda executed a new will and
revoked her 2016 will. Brenda’s 2020 will changed the allo-
cation of her and Allen’s former residence. This will pro-
vided that Hauck was to receive the entirety of the residence.
However, Hauck was to pay Ramona the sum of $85,000 from
the proceeds of the sale of the residence if Hauck sold it within
5 years of Brenda’s death, or earlier if Hauck should refinance
the property. If the property was not sold within 5 years of
Brenda’s death, the will provided that “it [was] my desire
that my daughter refinance the property to realize an amount
sufficient to pay the $85,000 to my stepdaughter.” The will
included an explanation that the $85,000 to be paid to Ramona
represented 50 percent of the original purchase price of the
residence when Brenda and Allen bought the property.
On November 13, 2020, Brenda also changed the benefi-
ciary designations on her investment account. The designation
of primary beneficiaries was changed to Hauck and to Brenda’s
biological son. The only contingent beneficiary listed on the
form was Hauck’s daughter, Brenda’s only grandchild. Ramona
was no longer included as either a primary or contingent ben-
eficiary for the account.
Brenda died on March 13, 2022. After her death, Hauck filed
estate proceedings and the 2020 will was informally admitted
to probate. Hauck was later appointed as personal representa-
tive of the estate, according to the terms of the will. Following
her appointment, on April 14, Hauck, as personal representa-
tive, filed an “Affidavit of Mailing Notice of Informal Probate
and Informal Appointment of Personal Representative, and

- 721 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
IN RE ESTATE OF FARRINGTON
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 716
Notice to Creditors.” The affidavit showed notice was mailed
to Ramona at her street address in New York, listing apartment
“#224.” On July 26, Hauck filed a “Supplemental Affidavit of
Mailing Notice of Informal Probate and Informal Appointment
of Personal Representative, and Notice to Creditors.” The
supplemental affidavit showed notice was mailed to Ramona
at the same street address in New York, but correctly listed
“#22A” as her apartment number.
On August 15, 2022, Ramona filed a statement of claim in
the estate proceedings. In the statement, Ramona indicated
that Brenda had breached an agreement to devise certain of
her property to Ramona. In particular, Ramona alleged that
as part of the settlement agreement reached with regard to
Allen’s estate, Brenda promised to award her a one-half inter-
est in the residence Brenda and Allen had shared at the time of
Allen’s death and one-half of the value of Allen’s investment
account. Ramona summarized her contentions as follows:
This claim is made by Ramona . . . (“Claimant”),
stepdaughter of [Brenda]. After the death of Allen R.
Farrington, [Ramona’s] father and [Brenda’s] husband,
[Ramona and Brenda] entered into certain settlement
agreements in connection with Allen Farrington’s estate.
Under those agreements, [Brenda] agreed to convey cer-
tain property to [Ramona], to designate [Ramona] as
a one-half beneficiary on an [investment account] that
[Brenda] inherited from Allen R. Farrington, and to make
provision for [Ramona] in [Brenda’s] will. [Brenda] failed
to convey the above property to [Ramona], to desig-
nate [Ramona] as a one-half beneficiary on the [invest-
ment account], and to make provision for [Ramona] in
[Brenda’s] will as promised.
On October 12, 2022, Hauck filed a notice of disallow-
ance of Ramona’s claim. Ramona then filed a petition for
allowance of her claim with the county court. In her petition,
Ramona defined herself as a creditor of the estate who is an
interested person pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2209(21)

- 722 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
IN RE ESTATE OF FARRINGTON
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 716
(Reissue 2016). She asked the county court to award her with
a “50% interest” in the residence and one-half of the value of
the investment account.
After filing her petition, Ramona filed a motion for partial
summary judgment. In this motion, she asked that the county
court grant her claim for one-half of the interest in Brenda and
Allen’s residence. Her accompanying brief in support of her
motion asserted that Brenda entered into a written contract
promising that she would “split” the house between Ramona
and Hauck at the time of Brenda’s death and would provide
for such division in her will. Ramona further asserted that
when Brenda altered her will in 2020, she materially breached
the agreement to give her a 50-percent interest in the house.
Essentially, Ramona asserted that there was no genuine dis-
pute of material fact that Brenda’s promise entitled her to the
50-percent interest.
Subsequent to Ramona’s filing her motion for partial sum-
mary judgment, in February 2024, Hauck also filed a motion
for partial summary judgment. In that motion, Hauck alleged
that there was insufficient evidence to prove that Ramona had
any claim to the funds in Brenda’s investment account at the
time of her death. In Hauck’s brief in support of the motion for
partial summary judgment, she asserted that there was simply
no evidence, other than Ramona’s self-serving statements, that
Brenda ever made a promise to name Ramona as a beneficiary
of the account. Without such evidence, Hauck asserts, Brenda
was free to change the beneficiaries of the investment account
at any time prior to her death.
In March 2024, Hauck filed another motion for summary
judgment as to Ramona’s claim against the estate regarding
both the house and the investment account. Hauck asserted that
Ramona’s claim was not timely filed pursuant to § 30-2485
and, as a result, was barred. Section 30-2485 provides details
on when a claim against an estate must be filed, depend-
ing on whether the claim arose prior to or after the death of
a decedent.

- 723 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
IN RE ESTATE OF FARRINGTON
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 716
A hearing was held on the parties’ motions for summary
judgment on April 11, 2024. Both parties offered evidence
and provided argument before the court. Ramona reasserted
her position that there was no genuine issue of material fact
regarding whether Brenda had breached the agreement to
“split” the house between Ramona and Hauck at the time of
Brenda’s death. Because Brenda’s 2020 will did not devise a
one-half interest in the house to Ramona, she argued that her
partial motion for summary judgment should be granted as to
this issue.
Ramona also opposed Hauck’s motions for summary judg-
ment. She argued that she had presented sufficient evidence of
her agreement with Brenda regarding the investment account
to survive a motion for summary judgment. In particular,
she pointed to the March 2016 form designating her as a pri-
mary beneficiary of Brenda’s investment account. Ramona
contended that this form evidenced Brenda’s promise to give
her one-half of the value of that account, which comprised the
funds from Allen’s investment account. Noting the incorrect
address placed on the April 14, 2022, affidavit of mailing, she
also argued that her claim against the estate was timely made
pursuant to § 30-2485 because she did not receive proper
notice of Brenda’s death until July 2022. She then filed her
claim within a month of receiving such notice.
Contrary to Ramona’s assertions at the summary judgment
hearing, Hauck asserted that Ramona’s motion for partial sum-
mary judgment regarding the house should be denied because
there were genuine issues of material fact that remained to
be decided. Specifically, Hauck argued that pursuant to the
promise Brenda made in the June 2016 letter to Ramona, the
house did not have to be divided equally between Ramona and
Hauck. Hauck next asserted that her motion for partial sum-
mary judgment regarding the investment account should be
granted because Ramona had failed to provide any evidence
that there was an agreement between Ramona and Brenda
as to the division of the funds in the account at the time of

- 724 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
IN RE ESTATE OF FARRINGTON
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 716
Brenda’s death. Finally, Hauck asserted that Ramona’s entire
claim against the estate was barred because the claim was
not timely made. Hauck argued that Ramona’s claim arose
at the time of Brenda’s death and that, as such, pursuant to
§ 30-2485(b), she had 4 months from Brenda’s death on March
13, 2022, to file her claim.
After the hearing, the county court entered an order granting
Hauck’s March 2024 motion for summary judgment, conclud-
ing that Ramona’s claim to the house and to the investment
account was barred by the statute of limitations delineated
in § 30-2485(b). Specifically, the court found that Ramona’s
claim arose at the time of Brenda’s death on March 13, 2022.
Pursuant to § 30-2485(b)(2), claims arising on or after the
death of a decedent must be made within 4 months of the
decedent’s death. As such, Ramona was required to make her
claim on or before July 13. However, Ramona filed her state-
ment of claim with Hauck on August 15, more than a month
past the filing deadline. Given the court’s ruling regarding the
claims being time barred, it found the other two motions for
summary judgment filed by Ramona and Hauck to be moot.
Ramona appeals from the county court’s order here.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
Ramona assigns, restated and consolidated, three errors
on appeal. First, she asserts that the assets in dispute did
not involve claims against the estate, or probate assets, so
the county court incorrectly applied the statute of limita-
tions contained in § 30-2485. Second, Ramona asserts that
even if the assets in dispute involved “claims,” or probate
assets, the county court erred in determining such claims
arose at the time of or after Brenda’s death and in applying
the 4-month statute of limitations provided in § 30-2485(b).
Finally, Ramona asserts that the county court erred in grant-
ing Hauck’s motion for summary judgment. She argues that
the court should have, instead, granted her partial motion for
summary judgment, because it was clear from the evidence

- 725 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
IN RE ESTATE OF FARRINGTON
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 716
that Brenda breached her contract with Ramona regarding the
disposition of the residence.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[1,2] An appellate court reviews a lower court’s grant of
summary judgment de novo, viewing the record in the light
most favorable to the nonmoving party and drawing all rea-
sonable inferences in that party’s favor. White v. White, 316
Neb. 616, 6 N.W.3d 204 (2024). An appellate court will affirm
a lower court’s grant of summary judgment if the pleadings
and admitted evidence show that there is no genuine issue as
to any material facts or as to the ultimate inferences that may
be drawn from the facts and that the moving party is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law. Id.
[3-5] An appeal from the county court’s allowance or disal-
lowance of a claim in probate will be heard as an appeal from
an action at law. In re Estate of Giventer, 310 Neb. 39, 964
N.W.2d 234 (2021). In reviewing a judgment of the probate
court in a law action, an appellate court does not reweigh evi-
dence, but considers the evidence in the light most favorable
to the successful party and resolves evidentiary conflicts in
favor of the successful party, who is entitled to every reason-
able inference deducible from the evidence. Id. The probate
court’s factual findings have the effect of a verdict and will
not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. Id. On a question of
law, an appellate court is obligated to reach a conclusion inde-
pendent of the determination reached by the court below. Id.
Statutory interpretation is a question of law, which an appel-
late court resolves independently of the trial court. Id.
ANALYSIS
In her petition for allowance of claim, Ramona specifi-
cally alleged that she was a creditor of Brenda’s estate in that
she was to receive a portion of Brenda’s property, including
a “50% interest” in the house owned by Brenda and Allen
and one-half of the value of Brenda’s investment account.

- 726 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
IN RE ESTATE OF FARRINGTON
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 716
In effect, Ramona was making a “claim” against Brenda’s
estate. Section 30-2209(4) defines a “claim” against the estate
as follows:
Claim, in respect to estates of decedents and protected
persons, includes liabilities of the decedent or protected
person whether arising in contract, in tort or otherwise,
and liabilities of the estate which arise at or after the
death of the decedent or after the appointment of a
conservator, including funeral expenses and expenses
of administration. The term does not include estate or
inheritance taxes, demands or disputes regarding title of a
decedent or protected person to specific assets alleged to
be included in the estate.
Throughout the county court proceedings, both Ramona
and Hauck treated Ramona’s statement of claim as a claim
against Brenda’s estate that arose pursuant to an alleged con-
tract between Ramona and Brenda. In fact, both parties relied
on § 30-2485, which specifically pertains to claims against
an estate, to argue whether Ramona timely filed her claim
against Brenda’s estate. And, ultimately, in its order granting
Hauck’s motion for summary judgment and finding Ramona’s
claim against the estate to be time barred by the language of
§ 30-2485, the county court also treated Ramona’s statement
of claim as a claim filed against Brenda’s estate.
On appeal, Ramona now argues that her statement of claim
is not, in fact, a claim against Brenda’s estate, but is instead
a breach of contract action. Ramona asserts that she is not a
creditor of the estate, but, rather, a beneficiary. Based on these
assertions, Ramona contends that the county court erred in
finding that her suit was time barred based on the language of
§ 30-2485. Essentially, she asserts that the statute of limita-
tions delineated in § 30-2485 does not apply to a breach of
contract action. During her oral argument, Ramona’s counsel
indicated that Ramona had also filed a separate action regard-
ing the breach of contract claims against the estate in dis-
trict court.

- 727 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
IN RE ESTATE OF FARRINGTON
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 716
Ramona’s argument that her statement of claim is actually
a breach of contract action is based on the Nebraska Supreme
Court’s recent opinion in White v. White, 316 Neb. 616, 6
N.W.3d 204 (2024). Before we discuss the substance of the
Supreme Court’s opinion, we note that when the opinion was
released in May 2024, the April 2024 summary judgment hear-
ing on the parties’ various motions had concluded, but the
county court had not yet issued its June 2024 order granting
Hauck’s motion for summary judgment. Thus, no argument
regarding the impact of White was made to the county court.
In White v. White, supra, the Supreme Court was presented
with a dispute between a decedent’s wife and the copersonal
representatives of the decedent’s estate over the ownership of
$100,000 and a camper under the terms of a premarital agree-
ment. In their argument to the Supreme Court, the copersonal
representatives of the estate asserted that the decedent’s wife
was barred from receiving either asset because she failed
to timely file a claim against the estate, as is required by
§ 30-2485. Instead of filing a claim in the probate proceed-
ings, the decedent’s wife had filed a complaint in district court
against the copersonal representatives, alleging that they had
breached the premarital agreement. In its opinion, the Supreme
Court noted that although not analyzed in any of the lower
court proceedings, the first step in addressing the copersonal
representatives’ assertion was to resolve whether the dece-
dent’s wife’s cause of action was, in fact, a claim against the
estate, which was subject to the statute of limitations delin-
eated in § 30-2485.
The $100,000 in contention in White v. White, supra, was
part of a premarital agreement between the decedent and his
wife. The agreement provided that if the wife survived her
husband, she would receive $100,000 from his estate. Id.
This provision in the agreement went on to state: “‘[T]his . . .
shall be treated as a contract to make a Will.’” Id. at 627, 6
N.W.3d at 213. The Supreme Court found that the premarital
agreement constituted a writing signed by the decedent that

- 728 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
IN RE ESTATE OF FARRINGTON
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 716
established a valid contract to make a will. The court went on
to hold that the effect of a breach of a valid contract to make
a will is not to create a claim against the decedent’s estate,
but instead is to create a cause of action for breach of con-
tract. The court explained that the decedent’s wife was not a
creditor of the estate who needed to file a claim, but, rather,
she was a beneficiary of the estate, who could file a breach of
contract action for the payment of the $100,000. Id. As such,
the cause of action was not subject to the statute of limitations
delineated in § 30-2485 for claims against an estate, but was
subject to the 5-year statute of limitations for an action for
breach of a written contract. See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-205(1)
(Reissue 2016).
The Supreme Court also found that the decedent’s wife’s
suit for the camper was not a claim against the estate: “[I]t was
instead a dispute regarding the title of a specific asset allegedly
belonging to [the decedent]’s estate.” White v. White, 316 Neb.
616, 629, 6 N.W.3d 204, 214 (2024). Because § 30-2209(4)
explicitly excludes “disputes regarding title of a decedent or
protected person to specific assets alleged to be included in
the estate” from the definition of a claim, the Supreme Court
held the cause of action for the camper was not a claim and
was not subject to the statute of limitations delineated within
§ 30-2485. White v. White, supra.
Given the Supreme Court’s opinion in White, we find that
here, the county court was required to first consider whether
Ramona’s 	statement 	of 	claim 	actually 	presented 	a 	claim
against the estate pursuant to § 30-2209(4) before it considered
whether any such claim was time barred under the language
of § 30-2485. We recognize that the opinion in White was
released less than a month prior to the county court’s issuing
its order finding Ramona’s claims to be time barred. In addi-
tion, we are mindful that in Ramona’s petition and in all of her
arguments before the county court, she affirmatively asserted
her belief that her statement of claim was a claim against
Brenda’s estate. And, while Ramona did change attorneys after

- 729 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
IN RE ESTATE OF FARRINGTON
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 716
filing her original petition, she never raised the question of
whether such petition accurately characterized the nature of
her claim. In other words, Ramona never argued in the county
court that she was raising a claim of breach of contract, rather
than a claim against the estate, and her argument on appeal is
directly contrary to the position she took below. She is arguing
for the first time on appeal that her suit is actually a breach of
contract action brought by a beneficiary of the estate.
[6] However, despite the fact that neither Ramona, nor
Hauck, nor the county court ever questioned whether Ramona’s
claim and petition constituted anything other than a claim
brought pursuant to § 30-2209(4), the Supreme Court’s holding
in White required the county court to first determine that exact
point. The county court was required to determine whether
Ramona’s statement of claim raised a valid claim against the
estate pursuant to the probate statutes. That question is a ques-
tion of law that has to be addressed before determining whether
such claim was timely presented pursuant to § 30-2485.
We conclude that neither the dispute over the house nor the
dispute over the investment account constitutes a claim that is
subject to the time limitations prescribed by § 30-2485.
House.
The dispute over the house is not a claim subject to
§ 30-2485 and, as such, is not barred from being asserted for
being untimely filed. It was instead a dispute regarding the title
of a specific asset allegedly belonging to the estate.
[7] As mentioned above, § 30-2209(4) explicitly excludes
“disputes regarding title of a decedent or protected person to
specific assets alleged to be included in the estate” from the
definition of a “claim” as that term is addressed in § 30-2485.
See, also, In re Estate of Chaney, 232 Neb. 121, 439 N.W.2d
764 (1989). Ramona’s petition for allowance of claim indi-
cates that she is seeking a “50% interest” in the house for-
merly owned by Brenda and Allen, which interest she asserts
Brenda promised to her prior to Brenda’s death. Accordingly,

- 730 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
IN RE ESTATE OF FARRINGTON
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 716
Ramona is raising a title dispute for a specific asset that was
alleged by Hauck to belong to Brenda’s estate. The dispute
regarding the title of the house thus did not involve a claim
against the estate as defined by § 30-2209(4). And, because
the dispute was not a claim against the estate, it is not time
barred pursuant to the provisions of § 30-2485, as the county
court found.
Investment Account.
The dispute regarding Brenda’s investment account is also
not a claim against her estate subject to the filing limitations
provided in § 30-2485 and, as such, is not time barred pursu-
ant to that statutory subsection. The investment account is,
instead, a nonprobate asset.
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2715 (Cum. Supp. 2024) provides a
noninclusive list of nonprobate alternatives for the disposition
of assets upon the death of a party to a multiparty or payable
on death account. Included in the list of nonprobate assets is
“an insurance policy, contract of employment, bond, mort-
gage, promissory note, certificated or uncertificated security,
account agreement, custodial agreement, deposit agreement,
compensation plan, pension plan, individual retirement plan,
employee benefit plan, trust, marital property agreement, cer-
tificate of title, or other written instrument of a similar nature.”
§ 30-2715(a). Such nonprobate assets can include a written
provision that
money or other benefits due to, controlled by, or owned
by a decedent before death must be paid after the dece-
dent’s death to a person whom the decedent designates
either in the instrument or in a separate writing, including
a will, executed either before or at the same time as the
instrument, or later.
§ 30-2715(a)(1).
Here, Brenda’s investment account is referred to as an
“Individual, Joint or Retirement Account[]” in the documenta-
tion offered at the summary judgment hearing. Brenda signed

- 731 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
IN RE ESTATE OF FARRINGTON
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 716
a form in November 2020 designating her beneficiaries for this
account. Contrary to the earlier version of this form, Brenda
designated only her two biological children as primary benefi-
ciaries. Brenda acknowledged the following when signing the
beneficiary form:
I understand that if no designated beneficiary survives
me, or if no beneficiary designation is in effect at my
death, the account balance(s) will be paid to my spouse,
or if I am not survived by a spouse, to my estate. I am
aware that this form replaces all prior beneficiary des-
ignations for the account(s) listed on this form, becomes
effective when received and accepted . . . and will remain
in effect until I deliver . . . another designation form with
a later date.
[8] Brenda’s investment account was clearly a nonprobate
asset as defined in § 30-2715. It was a financial account
in which Brenda specifically designated in writing how the
funds should be allocated upon her death. And, given that
the designated beneficiaries of the investment account were
alive at the time of Brenda’s death, the funds were paid to the
beneficiaries, and not to Brenda’s estate. Because the funds in
the investment account were never a part of Brenda’s estate,
Ramona’s dispute regarding the allocation of these funds is not
a proper claim against the estate. Accordingly, § 30-2485 is
not applicable to the dispute regarding the investment account
funds and does not serve to bar Ramona’s prosecution of
this dispute.
Given that neither the dispute regarding the residence nor
the dispute regarding the investment account is a proper claim
against the estate as contemplated by the definition of a claim
delineated in § 30-2209(4), we must vacate the order of the
county court that granted summary judgment to Hauck on
the basis that Ramona’s claims against the estate were not
timely filed. In addition, given our conclusion that the dis-
putes regarding the residence and the investment account are
not claims, the summary judgment motions filed by Ramona

- 732 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
IN RE ESTATE OF FARRINGTON
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 716
and Hauck in February 2024 are not moot. We remand to the
county court with directions to determine whether it is the
proper forum to consider the issues raised in the remaining two
motions for summary judgment and conduct any additional
proceedings that may be necessary.
CONCLUSION
We vacate the county court’s order granting Hauck’s March
2024 motion for summary judgment because Ramona’s suit
was time barred. We remand the cause with directions for the
county court to conduct such other necessary proceedings as
provided herein.
Vacated and remanded with directions.