In re Hessler Living Trust

- 600 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
316 Nebraska Reports
IN RE HESSLER LIVING TRUST
Cite as 316 Neb. 600
In re Michael Hessler Living Trust.
Heidi Shaddick et al., appellants, v. Robert
Hessler, Successor Trustee of The
Michael Hessler Living Trust,
and Lori J. Miller, appellees.
___ N.W.3d ___
Filed May 10, 2024. 	No. S-23-472.
1. Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. A jurisdictional question that does not
involve a factual dispute is determined by an appellate court as a matter
of law.
2. Judgments: Appeal and Error. An appellate court independently
reviews questions of law decided by a lower court.
3. Venue: Appeal and Error. Where the record does not show an abuse of
discretion, a ruling on a motion to transfer venue will not be disturbed
on appeal.
4. Judgments: Words and Phrases. A judicial abuse of discretion requires
that the reasons or rulings of the trial court be clearly untenable insofar
as they unfairly deprive a litigant of a substantial right and a just result.
5. Rules of Evidence: Appeal and Error. Where the Nebraska Evidence
Rules commit the evidentiary question at issue to the discretion of
the trial court, the admissibility of evidence is reviewed for an abuse
of discretion.
6. Trusts: Equity: Judgments: Evidence: Appeal and Error. Absent an
equity question, an appellate court reviews trust administration matters
for error appearing on the record; but where an equity question is pre-
sented, appellate review of that issue is de novo on the record. When
reviewing a judgment for errors appearing on the record, the inquiry
is whether the decision conforms to the law, is supported by compe-
tent evidence, and is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable.
In a review de novo on the record, an appellate court reappraises the
evidence as presented by the record and reaches its own independent
conclusions concerning the matters at issue.
Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
10/14/2026 08:34 AM CDT

- 601 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
316 Nebraska Reports
IN RE HESSLER LIVING TRUST
Cite as 316 Neb. 600
7. Wills: Trusts. The interpretation of the words in a will or a trust pre-
sents a question of law.
8. Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. Before reaching the legal issues
presented for review, it is the duty of an appellate court to determine
whether it has jurisdiction over the matter before it.
9. Trusts: Appeal and Error. Appellate review under the Nebraska
Uniform Trust Code is governed by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-1601 (Cum.
Supp. 2022), which statute incorporates the rules of appealability in civil
matters, including Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1902 (Cum. Supp. 2022).
10. Final Orders. Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1902 (Cum. Supp. 2022),
a final order includes an order made during a special proceeding and
affecting a substantial right.
11. Final Orders: Words and Phrases. A substantial right is an essential
legal right, not a mere technical right.
12. Final Orders: Appeal and Error. A substantial right is affected if an
order affects the subject matter of the litigation, such as by diminishing
a claim or defense that was available to an appellant before the order
from which an appeal is taken.
13. ____: ____. Having a substantial effect on a substantial right depends
most fundamentally on whether the right could otherwise effectively be
vindicated through an appeal from the final judgment.
14. Final Orders: Venue. Under Nebraska’s final order jurisprudence, an
order transferring venue to another county in Nebraska does not affect a
substantial right.
15. Trial: Evidence: Appeal and Error. In a civil case, the admission or
exclusion of evidence is not reversible error unless it unfairly prejudiced
a substantial right of the complaining party.
16. Decedents’ Estates: Taxation. The inheritance tax is a tax on the ben-
eficiary, not the decedent.
17. Decedents’ Estates: Taxation: Wills. The burden of inheritance taxes
will be imposed upon the individual beneficiaries of the decedent
in accordance with the statutory pattern unless there is a clear and
unambiguous direction to the contrary in the will or other governing
instrument.
18. Decedents’ Estates: Taxation: Wills: Intent. A testator or settlor who
wants to shift the burden of the inheritance tax may employ any word
or combination of words that the testator or settlor desires, and a few
simple words might be enough to show his or her intent. But the direc-
tion in the will, trust, or other governing instrument must be clear and
unambiguous in order to supplant the statutory pattern. Any ambiguities
are resolved in favor of the statutory pattern.

- 602 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
316 Nebraska Reports
IN RE HESSLER LIVING TRUST
Cite as 316 Neb. 600
Appeal from the County Court for Scotts Bluff County: Kris
D. Mickey, Judge. Affirmed.
Cathy S. Trent-Vilim, Daniel J. Waters, and John M. Walker,
of Lamson, Dugan & Murray, L.L.P., for appellants.
Andrew W. Snyder and Thomas T. Holyoke, of Holyoke,
Snyder, Longoria, Reichert & Rice, P.C., L.L.O., and Jeffery T.
Peetz and Allyson G. Rafferty, of Peetz, Koerwitz & Lafleur,
P.C., L.L.O., for appellees.
Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke,
Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.
Cassel, J.
INTRODUCTION
A decedent’s trust provided for payment of inheritance taxes
“from this trust,” devised a house “outright” to the decedent’s
girlfriend, and bequeathed the trust’s residuary to his three
children. After the trustee deeded the house to the girlfriend
and allocated all inheritance tax to the trust’s residuary, the
children sued. Because we agree with the county court that the
trust’s language was sufficiently clear to supplant the statutory
pattern that would otherwise presume equitable apportionment
of inheritance tax, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
This case involving the “The Michael Hessler Living Trust”
(the trust) is before us again following our dismissal of the first
appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 1 After identifying the parties
and discussing the trust and its registration, we set forth the
relevant procedural background leading to the instant appeal.
Parties
Michael A. Hessler (the decedent) was the settlor of the
trust. He had three children: Heidi Shaddick, Amber Rocha,
1 See In re Hessler Living Trust, 313 Neb. 607, 985 N.W.2d 589 (2023).

- 603 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
316 Nebraska Reports
IN RE HESSLER LIVING TRUST
Cite as 316 Neb. 600
and Brock Hessler (collectively the children). The decedent
died in November 2020.
In 2009 or 2010, the decedent began a romantic relationship
with Lori J. Miller. The decedent and Miller never married,
but they were living together at the time of his death.
Robert Hessler is the successor trustee (trustee) of the trust.
Trust and Amendments
In 2006, the decedent executed the trust. According to the
trust’s language, the decedent was “desirous of establishing a
trust for the benefit of his children, issue and himself.”
The focus of this appeal is paragraph 7 of the trust. The first
two subparts of that paragraph provided for the payment of
taxes, expenses, and debts. The latter two subparts addressed
distribution of personal property, income, and principal. The
paragraph stated:
7. USAGE OF TRUST PROPERTY ON AND AFTER
SETTLOR’S DEATH.
a. PAYMENT OF TAXES. The Successor Trustee shall
pay from this trust all inheritance and estate taxes due by
reason of the Settlor’s death irrespective of whether such
taxes are in respect of the trust property.
b. PAYMENT OF EXPENSES AND DEBTS. The
Successor 	Trustee 	shall 	pay 	the 	funeral 	and 	related
expenses of the Settlor together with the expenses of
last illness not covered by [M]edicare or insurance.
Additionally, the Successor Trustee may pay such of
the debts and obligations of the Settlor as the Successor
Trustee determines appropriate under the circumstances.
In further addition, the Successor Trustee may pay the
expenses of administering Settlor’s estate, it being the
express intention of the Settlor that the Successor Trustee
take such actions as are appropriate to bring about an
efficient and orderly administration of Settlor’s estate.
c. DISTRIBUTION OF TANGIBLE PERSONAL
PROPERTY. 	The 	Successor 	Trustee 	shall 	distribute

- 604 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
316 Nebraska Reports
IN RE HESSLER LIVING TRUST
Cite as 316 Neb. 600
items of tangible personal property pursuant to and in
accordance with a list prepared by the Settlor and deliv-
ered to the Successor Trustee, or found among Settlor’s
documents and papers after death, indicating certain
items of such property and the person to whom each item
is to be distributed. In the event no list is found or in
the event there are items of such property not mentioned
on a list, then such property or the omitted items shall
pass as part of the remaining trust property disposed
of hereinbelow.
d. DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME AND PRINCIPAL.
The Successor Trustee shall divide the remaining trust
property (including any additions thereto, any income
added to principal and any undistributed income) into
equal shares, one for each of the Settlor’s then living
children and any deceased child of the Settlor who has
left then living issue. Each share so created shall be held,
administered and disposed of under the following terms
and provisions[.]
The decedent subsequently amended the trust four times.
Each amendment included a paragraph “1.” containing the
modification 	and 	a 	paragraph 	“2. 	AFFIRMATION 	OF
TRUST” stating that “[t]he Trust is hereby ratified and
affirmed as amended herein.” Only the third amendment,
made in August 2017, modified paragraph 7. That amendment
provided that the decedent’s real estate in Lancaster County,
Nebraska (the residence), be distributed to Miller. The amend-
ment stated:
1. CHANGE IN DISPOSITIVE PROVISIONS. Prior
to making any distributions in accordance with paragraph
7.d. of the Trust Agreement, Settlor’s home . . . owned by
this trust shall be distributed outright to . . . Miller but
only in the event that she is living in such home at the
time of Settlor’s death. The legal description of the home
is . . . Lancaster County, Nebraska.

- 605 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
316 Nebraska Reports
IN RE HESSLER LIVING TRUST
Cite as 316 Neb. 600
Registration of Trust and Conveyance
Approximately 3 months after the decedent’s death, the
trustee registered the trust in Scotts Bluff County, Nebraska.
According to the trust registration statement, Scotts Bluff
County was the county of the trustee’s residence, the principal
place of administration of the trust, and the location of the
records pertaining to the trust.
Days after registering the trust, the trustee conveyed the
residence to Miller by a deed of distribution.
Tentative Inheritance
Tax Determination
According to an inventory, the trust property was valued
at $964,610.47. Of that amount, $592,000 constituted the fair
market value of the residence. Chapter 77, article 20, of the
Nebraska Revised Statutes imposes inheritance taxes on a
beneficiary’s distribution based on the beneficiary’s relation-
ship to the decedent. 2 Because the decedent and Miller never
married, her distribution is taxed at a higher rate than the dis-
tributions to the children. 3 According to a tentative inheritance
tax determination, the tax attributable to property received by
Miller was $94,627.04, while the tax attributable to property
received by each of the children was $710.50.
Petition to Remove Trustee
and for Other Relief
The children filed a petition against the trustee and Miller
in the county court for Lancaster County. They alleged that
venue was proper in Lancaster County because it was where
the residence was located, where Miller resided, and where
the decedent resided at the time of his death. Among other
relief, the children requested the removal of the trustee, the
setting aside of the real estate transfer, and a declaratory
judgment declaring the parties’ rights and duties with respect
2 In re Estate of Larson, 311 Neb. 352, 972 N.W.2d 891 (2022).
3 See Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 77-2004 and 77-2006 (Reissue 2018).

- 606 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
316 Nebraska Reports
IN RE HESSLER LIVING TRUST
Cite as 316 Neb. 600
to the inheritance tax consequences of Miller’s rights to the
residence. The children alleged that a proportionate share
of the inheritance tax and administrative expenses attributable
to the residence’s value should be paid out of Miller’s share
of the trust.
Motion to Transfer Venue
The trustee moved to transfer venue to Scotts Bluff County.
The motion stated that the trust was registered in Scotts Bluff
County and that the trustee resided in that county.
The county court for Lancaster County sustained the motion
and transferred venue to the county court for Scotts Bluff
County. The court reasoned that the essence of the children’s
petition was an effort to challenge the validity of amendments
to the trust and certain actions by the trustee and not a recovery
of real property.
Partial Summary Judgment
The children moved for partial summary judgment. They
asserted that the trust did not provide specific direction
regarding the apportionment of applicable inheritance taxes
and that such taxes should be equitably apportioned among
the persons interested in the estate. Miller also moved for
partial summary judgment. She asserted that the decedent
directed the trustee to pay Miller’s share of the inheritance tax
from the residuary of the estate.
The court received evidence during a hearing on the motions
for partial summary judgment. The trustee offered the affida-
vit of the attorney who drafted the trust and its amendments.
The children objected to a paragraph of the affidavit, which
they asserted was an attempt to enter parol evidence to inter-
pret a specific provision of the trust. The court overruled the
objection as to admissibility and received the affidavit into
evidence. The court also received Miller’s affidavit, which
established that she had lived with the decedent in the resi-
dence since its purchase in 2014.

- 607 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
316 Nebraska Reports
IN RE HESSLER LIVING TRUST
Cite as 316 Neb. 600
Subsequently, the court entered an order (apportionment
order) granting Miller’s motion for partial summary judgment
on the inheritance tax issue and denied the children’s motion.
The court reasoned that the trust, together with the third
amendment, was “sufficiently clear to supplant the statutory
inheritance tax pattern . . . that would otherwise presume equi-
table apportionment of the inheritance tax obligation among
the various trust beneficiaries.” The court stated that “[t]he
fact that an inheritance tax expense may be disproportionately
attributable to trust assets received by one beneficiary over
another . . . is immaterial in this case.”
First Appeal
The children purported to appeal from the apportionment
order and the order transferring venue. We determined that the
apportionment order was not a final order. 4 We stated that the
record did not include a final determination of inheritance tax.
Thus, we dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Subsequent Proceedings
The trustee filed a petition for final determination of inherit-
ance tax, approval of final accounting, and approval of attor-
ney and trustee fees, along with an inheritance tax worksheet.
The children objected to the proposed final inheritance tax
submission.
On May 25, 2023, the court entered an order. It accepted
and approved the inheritance tax worksheet for final deter-
mination of inheritance tax but changed the trustee fee. The
court assessed inheritance tax of $734.10 against each of the
children and of $92,939.90 against Miller. The court readopted
its earlier apportionment order concerning the burden of the
payment of the tax.
On June 22, 2023, the children appealed. According to
the notice of appeal, they sought to challenge the May 25
4 See In re Hessler Living Trust, supra note 1.

- 608 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
316 Nebraska Reports
IN RE HESSLER LIVING TRUST
Cite as 316 Neb. 600
order, the apportionment order, and “[s]uch other interlocutory
orders as deemed necessary or appropriate.” We moved the
appeal to our docket. 5
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
The children separately assign, to two different courts,
three errors, which we reorder and restate. They allege that
the county court for Lancaster County erred in transferring
venue to Scotts Bluff County. The children allege that the
county court for Scotts Bluff County erred in receiving extrin-
sic evidence to determine the decedent’s intent and in con-
cluding that all inheritance taxes were to be paid out of the
residue of the estate instead of proportionally by the respec-
tive beneficiaries. The trustee and Miller assert in their briefs
that we lack jurisdiction over the children’s venue assignment
of error.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[1] A jurisdictional question that does not involve a factual
dispute is determined by an appellate court as a matter of law. 6
[2] An appellate court independently reviews questions of
law decided by a lower court. 7
[3] Where the record does not show an abuse of discretion,
a ruling on a motion to transfer venue will not be disturbed
on appeal. 8
[4] A judicial abuse of discretion requires that the reasons
or rulings of the trial court be clearly untenable insofar as
they unfairly deprive a litigant of a substantial right and a
just result. 9
[5] Where the Nebraska Evidence Rules commit the evi-
dentiary question at issue to the discretion of the trial court,
5 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-1106(3) (Cum. Supp. 2022).
6 Clason v. LOL Investments, ante p. 91, 3 N.W.3d 94 (2024).
7 Id.
8 Bloedorn Lumber Co. v. Nielson, 300 Neb. 722, 915 N.W.2d 786 (2018).
9 In re Estate of Forgey, 298 Neb. 865, 906 N.W.2d 618 (2018).

- 609 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
316 Nebraska Reports
IN RE HESSLER LIVING TRUST
Cite as 316 Neb. 600
the admissibility of evidence is reviewed for an abuse of
discretion. 10
[6] Absent an equity question, an appellate court reviews
trust administration matters for error appearing on the record;
but where an equity question is presented, appellate review
of that issue is de novo on the record. 11 When reviewing a
judgment for errors appearing on the record, the inquiry is
whether the decision conforms to the law, is supported by
competent evidence, and is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor
unreasonable. 12 In a review de novo on the record, an appel-
late court reappraises the evidence as presented by the record
and reaches its own independent conclusions concerning the
matters at issue. 13
[7] The interpretation of the words in a will or a trust pre-
sents a question of law. 14
ANALYSIS
The primary issue presented in this appeal is the apportion-
ment of inheritance taxes. But before resolving that issue, we
first dispose of a jurisdictional argument and then address the
children’s venue and evidentiary challenges.
Jurisdiction
[8] Before reaching the legal issues presented for review, it
is the duty of an appellate court to determine whether it has
jurisdiction over the matter before it. 15 The trustee and Miller
contend that we lack jurisdiction to consider the children’s
10 In re Trust Created by Isvik, 274 Neb. 525, 741 N.W.2d 638 (2007).
11 In re Henry B. Wilson, Jr., Revocable Trust, 300 Neb. 455, 915 N.W.2d 50
(2018).
12 In re William R. Zutavern Revocable Trust, 309 Neb. 542, 961 N.W.2d 807
(2021).
13 In re Margaret L. Matthews Revocable Trust, 312 Neb. 381, 979 N.W.2d
259 (2022).
14 In re Estate of Larson, supra note 2.
15 Clason v. LOL Investments, supra note 6.

- 610 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
316 Nebraska Reports
IN RE HESSLER LIVING TRUST
Cite as 316 Neb. 600
venue challenge, because the children did not file a notice of
appeal within 30 days after entry of the order transferring the
case to Scotts Bluff County. They rely on the rule that where
a notice of appeal is not filed within 30 days after the entry of
a final order, an appellate court obtains no jurisdiction to hear
an appeal from that order, and an attempt to appeal from that
order must be dismissed. 16
[9-13] Whether this court has jurisdiction to address the
merits of the venue challenge turns on whether the order
transferring venue was a final order. Appellate review under
the Nebraska Uniform Trust Code is governed by Neb. Rev.
Stat. § 30-1601 (Cum. Supp. 2022), which statute incorporates
the rules of appealability in civil matters, including Neb. Rev.
Stat. § 25-1902 (Cum. Supp. 2022). 17 Under § 25-1902, a final
order includes an order made during a special proceeding and
affecting a substantial right. A substantial right is an essential
legal right, not a mere technical right. 18 A substantial right is
affected if an order affects the subject matter of the litigation,
such as by diminishing a claim or defense that was avail-
able to an appellant before the order from which an appeal
is taken. 19 It is not enough that the right itself be substantial;
the effect of the order on that right must also be substantial. 20
Having a substantial effect on a substantial right depends
most fundamentally on whether the right could otherwise
effectively be vindicated through an appeal from the final
judgment. 21 A substantial right under § 25-1902 is not affected
when that right can be effectively vindicated in an appeal from
the final judgment. 22
16 See Seid v. Seid, 310 Neb. 626, 967 N.W.2d 253 (2021).
17 See In re Estate of Scaletta, 312 Neb. 953, 981 N.W.2d 568 (2022).
18 In re Hessler Living Trust, supra note 1.
19 Id.
20 Id.
21 Id.
22 Id.

- 611 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
316 Nebraska Reports
IN RE HESSLER LIVING TRUST
Cite as 316 Neb. 600
[14] Generally, an order changing or declining to change
venue is interlocutory and not directly appealable. 23 In con-
sidering whether a ruling on venue affects a substantial right,
we determine that venue does not affect the subject matter
of the litigation and that it can be effectively reviewed fol-
lowing a judgment. We conclude that under our final order
jurisprudence, an order transferring venue to another county
in Nebraska does not affect a substantial right. Thus, the
children properly waited until entry of a final order or judg-
ment to challenge the venue order. Having determined that
we have jurisdiction, we proceed to consider the merits of the
venue challenge.
Venue
The children allege that the county court for Lancaster
County abused its discretion in transferring venue to Scotts
Bluff County. Relying on Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-401 (Reissue
2016), the children contend that an action involving real
estate must be brought in the county where the real estate is
situated. But this was not an action “to recover damages for
any trespass upon or any injury to real estate.” 24 In sustaining
the motion to transfer venue, the court stated: “It is apparent
that the essence of the petition is not a recovery of real prop-
erty. Rather, the essence of the petition is an effort to chal-
lenge the validity of certain Amendment(s) to the Decedent’s
Trust and certain actions by the Trustee.” We agree.
Neb. 	Rev. 	Stat. 	§ 	30-3815 	(Reissue 	2016) 	specifically
addresses venue for a judicial proceeding involving a trust. It
provides, “If a trust is registered in Nebraska, unless the reg-
istration has been released, the venue is in the court in which
the trust is registered, even if there is no trustee.” 25 Because
23 See, 4 Am. Jur. 2d Appellate Review § 132 (2018); 4 C.J.S. Appeal and
Error § 171 (2019); 92A C.J.S. Venue § 274 (2021). See, also, Romanchik
v. Lucak, 44 Ohio App. 3d 215, 542 N.E.2d 699 (1988).
24 § 25-401.
25 § 30-3815(c).

- 612 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
316 Nebraska Reports
IN RE HESSLER LIVING TRUST
Cite as 316 Neb. 600
the trustee registered the trust in Scotts Bluff County, venue
was proper there. We conclude that the court did not abuse its
discretion by transferring venue to Scotts Bluff County.
Admitting Extrinsic Evidence
The children next contend that the court erred in receiving
the affidavit from the attorney who drafted the trust and in
relying upon it to corroborate and clarify the decedent’s intent.
We have stated that unless a document is ambiguous, parol evi-
dence cannot be used to vary its terms. 26 We disagree that the
court relied on the affidavit.
The court’s order showed that it based its decision on the
language of the trust and an amendment. The first paragraph
of the court’s findings quoted the language of paragraph 7.a.
of the trust, considered that together with the language of the
third amendment, and stated that such language was “suffi-
ciently clear to supplant the statutory inheritance tax pattern
. . . that would otherwise presume equitable apportionment
of the inheritance tax obligation among the various trust ben-
eficiaries.” Then, the third paragraph of the court’s findings
stated that “[t]he clear language of the document, corroborated
by the affidavit of the attorney who crafted the relevant lan-
guage of the trust, sufficiently clarifies the Settlor’s specific
desire that the source of payment for inheritance taxes was to
be ‘this trust,’ . . . .” The order shows that the court referenced
the affidavit to buttress its conclusion, which it based on the
language of the trust and amendments.
[15] To the extent the court erred in receiving the attorney’s
affidavit, the error was harmless. In a civil case, the admis-
sion or exclusion of evidence is not reversible error unless
it unfairly prejudiced a substantial right of the complaining
party. 27 Here, the court’s findings demonstrate that it based its
decision on the language of the trust and amendment and not
on the affidavit.
26 In re William R. Zutavern Revocable Trust, supra note 12.
27 In re Estate of Walker, 315 Neb. 510, 997 N.W.2d 595 (2023).

- 613 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
316 Nebraska Reports
IN RE HESSLER LIVING TRUST
Cite as 316 Neb. 600
Apportionment of Inheritance Taxes
[16,17] The inheritance tax is a tax on the beneficiary,
not the decedent. 28 The burden of inheritance taxes will be
imposed upon the individual beneficiaries of the decedent in
accordance with the statutory pattern unless there is a clear
and unambiguous direction to the contrary in the will or other
governing instrument. 29 Generally, the fiduciary charged with
distributing a decedent’s property deducts the inheritance taxes
from any property distributed or collects the tax from the lega-
tee or the person entitled to such property. 30
[18] Notwithstanding the default provisions of chapter 77,
article 20, of the Nebraska Revised Statutes, a decedent’s
will or any written instrument executed inter vivos by the
decedent may provide direction for the apportionment of the
taxes assessed upon property subject to Nebraska inheritance
tax. 31 A testator or settlor who wants to shift the burden of
the inheritance tax may employ any word or combination of
words that the testator or settlor desires, and a few simple
words might be enough to show his or her intent. 32 But the
direction in the will, trust, or other governing instrument must
be clear and unambiguous in order to supplant the statutory
pattern. 33 Any ambiguities are resolved in favor of the statu-
tory pattern. 34
In In re Estate of Shell, 35 we considered whether the lan-
guage in a will supplanted the statutory pattern regarding
inheritance taxes. The paragraph at issue there contained
two sentences. The first sentence authorized the personal
28 In re Estate of Larson, supra note 2.
29 Id.
30 Id.
31 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-2038 (Reissue 2018).
32 See In re Estate of Larson, supra note 2.
33 See id.
34 Id.
35 In re Estate of Shell, 290 Neb. 791, 862 N.W.2d 276 (2015).

- 614 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
316 Nebraska Reports
IN RE HESSLER LIVING TRUST
Cite as 316 Neb. 600
representative “‘to pay from the principal of my residuary
estate . . . , all of my debts [and] all of the expenses of the
administration of my estate.’” 36 The second sentence autho-
rized the personal representative “‘to pay from my probate
estate, without contribution or reimbursement from any per-
son, all inheritance, legacy or estate taxes . . . .’” 37
In In re Estate of Shell, we concluded that the paragraph
clearly showed an intent to treat inheritance taxes as an
expense of the estate. We noted that the second sentence
expressly referred to inheritance taxes and directed that they
be paid from the probate estate, and we stated that courts
generally have determined that language directing payment
of estate and inheritance taxes exonerates the beneficiaries of
their tax burden. We further observed that the second sentence
immediately followed a direction in the first sentence to pay
the testator’s debts, expenses of his funeral, and expenses of
the administration of his estate. We reasoned, “Coupling a
direction to pay estate and inheritance taxes with a direction
to pay the testator’s debts, funeral expenses, and adminis-
tration costs shows the testator’s intent to pay the taxes off
the top.” 38
Similar reasoning applies here. Paragraph 7.a. instructed the
trustee to “pay from this trust all inheritance and estate taxes,”
whether on trust property or not. The next subpart, paragraph
7.b., directed the trustee to pay expenses and debts. Like in
In re Estate of Shell, these instructions to pay the taxes and
debts demonstrated the decedent’s intent that the taxes be
paid “off the top.” 39 Further, the third amendment specified
that the residence be “distributed outright” to Miller and that
it be done before dividing the remaining trust property. We
conclude the language of the trust clearly showed that the
36 Id. at 793, 862 N.W.2d at 278.
37 Id.
38 Id. at 796, 862 N.W.2d at 280 (internal quotation marks omitted).
39 Id.

- 615 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
316 Nebraska Reports
IN RE HESSLER LIVING TRUST
Cite as 316 Neb. 600
decedent wished to shift the burden of the inheritance tax from
the beneficiaries.
The children contend that the trust and amendments require
that all the trust’s assets—not just the residue—be used to pay
the taxes described in the trust. We do not believe that this is
consistent with our decision in In re Estate of Shell, nor that it
is a reasonable interpretation of the documents here. We there-
fore affirm the decision of the county court.
CONCLUSION
Having determined that the order transferring venue to a
different county in Nebraska was not a final order and that
the challenge was properly presented in this appeal, we find
no abuse of discretion in transferring venue to the county
where the trust was registered. We further find no reversible
error regarding the children’s evidentiary challenge. Because
we agree with the county court that the trust’s language pro-
vided clear direction that inheritance taxes be paid by the trust
rather than by the individual beneficiaries pro rata, we affirm
its decision.
Affirmed.