In re Estate of Weeder

- 393 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
318 Nebraska Reports
IN RE ESTATE OF WEEDER
Cite as 318 Neb. 393
In re Estate of John Weeder, deceased.
Richard Muller, appellee, v. Margene Cork,
Personal Representative of the Estate
of John Weeder, deceased, appellant.
___ N.W.3d ___
Filed January 31, 2025. 	No. S-24-068.
1. Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. A jurisdictional question which does
not involve a factual dispute is determined by an appellate court as a
matter of law.
2. Decedents’ Estates: Judgments: Appeal and Error. When reviewing
questions of law in a probate matter, an appellate court reaches a conclu-
sion independent of the determination reached by the court below.
3. Estates: Judgments: Appeal and Error. An appellate court reviews
probate cases for error appearing on the record made in the county court.
When reviewing a judgment for errors appearing on the record, the
inquiry is whether the decision conforms to the law, is supported by com-
petent evidence, and is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable.
4. Pleadings: Records: Evidence: Proof: Presumptions: Appeal and
Error. Generally, it is the appellant’s burden to present a record to sup-
port the errors assigned, and in the absence of a complete bill of excep-
tions, it is presumed that an issue of fact raised by the pleadings was
sustained by the evidence and that it was correctly determined.
5. 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.
6. ____: ____. Where a lower court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to
adjudicate the merits of a claim, issue, or question, an appellate court
also lacks the power to determine the merits of the claim, issue, or ques-
tion presented to the lower court.
7. Decedents’ Estates: Courts: Jurisdiction. Generally, the county court
has exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters relating to dece-
dents’ estates.
Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
10/14/2026 08:08 AM CDT

- 394 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
318 Nebraska Reports
IN RE ESTATE OF WEEDER
Cite as 318 Neb. 393
8. Actions: Claim Preclusion: Issue Preclusion. Unlike the doctrines of
claim preclusion and issue preclusion, which involve successive suits,
the law-of-the-case doctrine involves successive stages of one continu-
ing lawsuit.
9. Actions: Appeal and Error. When it applies, the law-of-the-case doc-
trine operates to preclude reconsideration of substantially similar, if not
identical, issues at successive stages of the same suit or prosecution.
10. ____: ____. The law-of-the-case doctrine promotes judicial efficiency
and protects parties’ settled expectations by preventing parties from
relitigating settled issues within a single action.
Appeal from the County Court for Boyd County, Kale B.
Burdick, Judge. Affirmed.
Lyle Joseph Koenig, of Koenig Law Firm, for appellant.
Ryan D. Cwach, of Birmingham & Cwach Law Offices,
P.L.L.C., for appellee.
Funke, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Papik, and
Freudenberg, JJ.
Cassel, J.
INTRODUCTION
In this probate appeal, a personal representative challenges
a county court’s order allowing a claim against a decedent’s
estate. Because the personal representative’s arguments con-
flate the claim in the probate estate with a separate judgment
in a different action, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
The instant appeal involves a claim filed by Richard Muller
against the estate of John Weeder, deceased, under the Nebraska
Probate Code. 1 The appellate record does not include the order
opening the estate or appointing the personal representative.
However, the parties seem to agree that the county court
1 See Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 30-401 to 30-406, 30-701 to 30-713, 30-2201 to
30-2902, 30-3901 to 30-3923, 30-4001 to 30-4045, 30-4101 to 30-4118,
and 30-4201 to 30-4210 (Reissue 2016 & Cum. Supp. 2024).

- 395 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
318 Nebraska Reports
IN RE ESTATE OF WEEDER
Cite as 318 Neb. 393
appointed the personal representative in October 2017 and that
the estate remained open at all relevant times.
In December 2017, Muller’s counsel filed a “Statement
of Claim” in the county court. Attached to it was a modified
judgment entered in favor of Muller and against Weeder in
July 2017, before Weeder died, in a separate action involving
a fence dispute. We recited the history of that judgment in our
opinion disposing of an appeal in the separate action. 2
In September 2023, Muller filed a “Petition for Allowance of
Claim” in the county court. Margene Cork, in her capacity as
personal representative of Weeder’s estate (the Estate), resisted
the claim and moved to strike it from the court’s docket.
Following a hearing, the court entered an order granting
Muller’s petition and allowing his claim against the Estate.
The Estate filed a timely appeal, which pursuant to statute
ran directly to the Nebraska Court of Appeals. 3 Thereafter,
we moved the appeal to our docket. 4 On appeal, the Estate
requested a bill of exceptions to include only the exhibits num-
bered 1 through 3. The county court’s order, which is included
in the transcript on appeal, explicitly considered “Exhibits
1-5.” Exhibits 4 and 5 are not in the bill of exceptions. In addi-
tion, the county court’s order does not disclose whether other
evidence was adduced.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
The Estate assigns that the county court erred as a matter of
law in determining that (1) “it had jurisdiction to address the
merits of this case, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determina-
tion that no court has had jurisdiction to address the merits of
this fence action since Weeder’s death in 2017,” and (2) the
“law-of-the-case was the last final order entered by the district
court in favor of Muller prior to Weeder’s death, and that revi-
vor was not necessary.”
2 See Muller v. Weeder, 313 Neb. 639, 986 N.W.2d 38 (2023).
3 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-1601 (Cum. Supp. 2024).
4 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-1106(3) (Cum. Supp. 2024).

- 396 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
318 Nebraska Reports
IN RE ESTATE OF WEEDER
Cite as 318 Neb. 393
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[1,2] A jurisdictional question which does not involve a
factual dispute is determined by an appellate court as a matter
of law. 5 When reviewing questions of law in a probate mat-
ter, an appellate court reaches a conclusion independent of the
determination reached by the court below. 6
[3] An appellate court reviews probate cases for error appear-
ing on the record made in the county court. 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. 7
ANALYSIS
[4] This action involves Muller’s claim 8 against the Estate
in the county court. As noted above, the Estate did not request
a complete bill of exceptions. Generally, it is the appellant’s
burden to present a record to support the errors assigned, and
in the absence of a complete bill of exceptions, it is presumed
that an issue of fact raised by the pleadings was sustained by
the evidence and that it was correctly determined. 9 Further,
the Estate frames the assignments of error solely as questions
of law. This framing, coupled with the presumption, signifi-
cantly narrows the issues before us. The assignments are pre-
mised on a prior appeal 10 in the fence dispute action, which
is not before us. With this distinction in mind, we turn to the
Estate’s arguments.
5 Main St Properties v. City of Bellevue, ante p. 116, 13 N.W.3d 911 (2024).
6 In re Estate of Lofgreen, 312 Neb. 937, 981 N.W.2d 585 (2022).
7 In re Guardianship of Patrick W., 316 Neb. 381, 4 N.W.3d 833 (2024).
8 See § 30-2209(4) (“[c]laim, 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”).
9 See In re Estate of Baer, 273 Neb. 969, 735 N.W.2d 394 (2007).
10 See Muller v. Weeder, supra note 2.

- 397 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
318 Nebraska Reports
IN RE ESTATE OF WEEDER
Cite as 318 Neb. 393
County Court Had Subject
Matter Jurisdiction
[5,6] We begin with the question of whether the county
court had subject matter jurisdiction over Muller’s claim.
Before reaching the legal issues presented for review, it is the
duty of an appellate court to determine whether it has juris-
diction over the matter before it. 11 Where a lower court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of a claim,
issue, or question, an appellate court also lacks the power to
determine the merits of the claim, issue, or question presented
to the lower court. 12
The Estate contends that the county court lacked jurisdiction
to allow Muller’s claim, because the Court of Appeals was the
only court with jurisdiction over the matter. We disagree.
[7] Generally, the county court has exclusive original juris-
diction over all matters relating to decedents’ estates. 13 The
general statutory grant of jurisdiction provides, in part, that
“[e]ach county court shall have . . . [e]xclusive original juris-
diction of all matters relating to decedents’ estates, includ-
ing the probate of wills and the construction thereof,” 14 with
certain exceptions that are not at issue here. The Legislature
has provided a specific grant of jurisdiction in the Nebraska
Probate Code, which states:
(a) To the full extent permitted by the Constitution
of Nebraska, the court has jurisdiction over all subject
matter relating to (1) estates of decedents, including con-
struction of wills and determination of heirs and succes-
sors of decedents, and estates of protected persons . . . .
(b) The court has full power to make orders, judg-
ments, and decrees and take all other action necessary and
11 Main St Properties v. City of Bellevue, supra note 5.
12 Id.
13 In re Estate of Adelung, 306 Neb. 646, 947 N.W.2d 269 (2020). See Neb.
Rev. Stat. § 24-517(1) (Cum. Supp. 2024). See, also, § 30-2211(a).
14 § 24-517.

- 398 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
318 Nebraska Reports
IN RE ESTATE OF WEEDER
Cite as 318 Neb. 393
proper to administer justice in the matters which come
before it. 15
Here, the county court had explicit statutory authority to
decide Muller’s claim. The record shows that Muller filed
a statement of claim in this decedent’s probate estate and a
petition for allowance of claim in that same probate case.
The court then held a hearing on the petition and entered an
order allowing the claim. The Estate does not argue that the
claim failed to meet the applicable statutory requirements. 16
The presumption flowing from the absence of a complete bill
of exceptions precludes a deeper factual inquiry—an inquiry
neither requested nor permitted by the Estate’s assignments
of error.
On this record, we reach the independent conclusion that
the court had subject matter jurisdiction over Muller’s claim. It
follows that we have jurisdiction of the appeal.
The Estate contends that the court’s ruling was contrary
to our decision in a prior appeal, 17 in a different action, con-
cerning a fence dispute. In the fence case, a monetary judg-
ment was entered in favor of Muller and against Weeder.
Weeder died while an appeal 18 was pending before the Court of
Appeals (unbeknownst to that court). In a subsequent appeal, 19
we determined that as a result of Weeder’s death, the fence
action remained suspended in the Court of Appeals pending
revivor. 20 As noted above, the fence case is not before us.
15 § 30-2211. See, also, § 30-2209(5) (defining “court” to generally refer to
county court for purposes of Nebraska Probate Code).
16 See § 30-2404 (“[a]fter the appointment [of a personal representative] and
until distribution, all proceedings and actions to enforce a claim against
the estate are governed by the procedure prescribed by this article”).
17 See Muller v. Weeder, supra note 2.
18 See Muller v. Weeder, 26 Neb. App. 938, 924 N.W.2d 754 (2019), vacated
Muller v. Weeder, supra note 2.
19 See Muller v. Weeder, supra note 2.
20 See Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 25-1403 to 25-1420 (Reissue 2016 & Cum. Supp.
2024) and 25-322 (Reissue 2016).

- 399 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
318 Nebraska Reports
IN RE ESTATE OF WEEDER
Cite as 318 Neb. 393
We reject the Estate’s jurisdictional argument for at least
two reasons. First, it conflates the two actions. In the probate
case now before us, the county court exercised authority only
over the probate claim. The presumption flowing from the
absence of a complete bill of exceptions precludes us from
speculating that the prior fence dispute judgment was the only
evidence supporting Muller’s claim. Second, our resolution
of the fence case did not affect the county court’s jurisdiction
of “all matters relating to decedents’ estates,” 21 including the
instant claim.
At oral argument, the Estate called our attention to a deci-
sion not cited in its brief. In Rich v. Cooper, 22 this court deter-
mined that a judgment creditor could not foreclose the lien of
the judgment because the judgment became dormant during
the pendency of the foreclosure action and before the decree
of foreclosure was entered. In that case, the judgment debtor
had died after an execution had been returned unsatisfied. At
argument, the Estate relied upon that decision for the proposi-
tion that a valid execution cannot issue after the death of a
party to the judgment without first reviving the judgment. We
have no quarrel with that proposition.
But the procedural posture here differs fundamentally. In
Rich, a claim for the full amount of the judgment was filed
in the county court and failed only because the assets of the
estate were insufficient to pay the claim. There, the judgment
creditor then attempted to foreclose the statutory lien against
the real estate. Here, Muller is not attempting to have an
execution issued on the fence dispute judgment or to fore-
close a judgment lien upon the decedent’s real estate. Instead,
Muller pursued his claim in the probate estate for the dece-
dent’s debt. The Nebraska Probate Code establishes a hierar-
chy for payment of claims where the assets of an estate are
21 § 24-517(1). See, also, § 30-2211(a).
22 Rich v. Cooper, 136 Neb. 463, 286 N.W. 383 (1939).

- 400 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
318 Nebraska Reports
IN RE ESTATE OF WEEDER
Cite as 318 Neb. 393
insufficient to pay all claims in full. 23 The procedure utilized
here is entirely consistent with our decision in Rich.
In the probate case, the county court had jurisdiction of
Muller’s claim against the Estate. Thus, the Estate’s first
assignment lacks merit.
Law-of-Case Doctrine Does Not Apply
[8] The Estate also assigns error based upon the law-of-the-
case doctrine. Unlike the doctrines of claim preclusion and
issue preclusion, which involve successive suits, the law-of-
the-case doctrine involves successive stages of one continuing
lawsuit. 24
[9,10] When it applies, the law-of-the-case doctrine oper-
ates to preclude reconsideration of substantially similar, if not
identical, issues at successive stages of the same suit or pros-
ecution. 25 The law-of-the-case doctrine promotes judicial effi-
ciency and protects parties’ settled expectations by preventing
parties from relitigating settled issues within a single action. 26
The Estate asserts that the law of the case in the fence dis-
pute case was also the law of the case in this separate probate
case. Again, the Estate conflates the two actions.
In order for the law-of-the-case doctrine to apply, the prior
decision needed to be made in the instant action. It was not. We
see no merit to this argument.
CONCLUSION
We conclude that our resolution of a prior appeal 27 in a
different action, involving the decedent and Muller, did not
affect the county court’s jurisdiction to decide Muller’s claim
against the decedent’s estate. Moreover, our resolution of the
23 See § 30-2487.
24 See Money v. Tyrrell Flowers, 275 Neb. 602, 748 N.W.2d 49 (2008).
25 State v. Betancourt-Garcia, 317 Neb. 174, 9 N.W.3d 426 (2024).
26 Spratt v. Crete Carrier Corp., 311 Neb. 262, 971 N.W.2d 335 (2022).
27 See Muller v. Weeder, supra note 2.

- 401 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
318 Nebraska Reports
IN RE ESTATE OF WEEDER
Cite as 318 Neb. 393
prior appeal was not the law of the case in this probate action.
We affirm the county court’s judgment.
In Muller’s brief, he asserted that he should be entitled to
attorney fees in this court. That matter must be raised, if at all,
by a timely motion in full compliance with Neb. Ct. R. App. P.
§ 2-106(G) (rev. 2024).
Affirmed.