Trial Transcripts

Under line 5 from Barbara J. Humphrey's September 26, 2018 Affidavit for Transfer of real Property without Probate claimed "I am entitled to the real property per the will of the deceased and I have made an investigation and have been unable to determine any subsequent will;"

-------------------------------------------------------

Under -640- of the Nebraska Supreme Court's Opinions the high court made it clear that "when a partition action involves a dispute over ownership or title as well as a dispute over the method of partition, the parties have a RIGHT TO HAVE TITLE DETERMINED FIRST."

     This is a case where the only way for Ms. Humphrey to prove ownership to title is to show the will for verification and she did not nor could not.

•      Under this same site -640- the high court made it clear that (on appeal, this court recognized that the "sole matter contested was the construction and effect of the will.
•      Under -641- the high court continued with "On appeal, we determined that the case came within the third Petersen class, because "the decree settling the question of title in the case at bar determined the whole controversy."
•       "in making this determination, we recognized that the real controversy in the action was the issue of title and that the partition prayed for was only incidental, because if the plaintiffs did not succeed in establishing their title, they would have no right to partition."
• -----------------------------------------------------
• Then, under -644- the high court called Barbara Humphrey out by name when writing: Thus, if the allegation that Donald forgave the Loan is true, it would necessarily follow that Smith is the sole owner of the Home and Barbara does not have a right to partition.
• -------------------------------------------------------
• Donald's forgiveness of the Loan
•      Barbara Humphrey's May 29, 2020 Deposition offer the evidence needed for proving Donald did forgive the remainder of the loan angering Barbara and causing her to run out of her front door. Not only had Donald forgiven the remainder of the loan but he'd also instructed Barbara to write Smith an additional check for $10,000 which Barbara wrote on August 8, 2018. (See: #10 $10,000 Check)
•      The following are excerpt's from Barbara's May 29, 2020 Deposition that offer proof of Donald's forgiveness of the Loan.
• 46:16-18 Smith: I'm getting to a point here. Okay? When I explained that to him, the first thing he said was that we can afford to go up to ten; am I correct/
• 46:19 Barbara: Yes.
• 46:20 Smith: And it angered you?
• 46:21 Barbara: Yes.
• 46:22-24 Smith: The first words out of your mouth was, oh, so he's got the house and he's getting a new truck. And with that, you jumped up and you ran out the front door; am I correct?
• 46:25; 47:1 Matthew Saathoff: Listen to his question and answer his question.
• 47:2-3 Barbara: I was upset with that statement, yes, I went to the front door.
• 47:4 Smith: You went out the house?
• 47:5 Barbara: I went out of the house, yes.
• CROSS-EXAMINATION
• 80:15-16 Matthew Saathoff: Did you ever make the statement, "So now he has the house and a car?" Yes or no?
• 80:17 Barbara: A house and a truck.
• 80:18 Matthew Saathoff: A house and a truck.
• 80:19 Barbara: Yes.
• 80:20 Matthew Saathoff: Okay. And what did you mean by that?
• 80 21-22 Barbara: Well, Don had wanted to give him the house, the $25,000 that he put up front for the house.
• ---------------------------------------------
• Folk's, this was the proof sought by the Nebraska Supreme Court for proving Donald forgave the loan and leaving me, Smith, as the sole owner of the property.
• However, other than a false statement made on her Affidavit Barbara has no link to the property.
• In its May 27, 2020 Opinion's the Nebraska Supreme Court made it clear that if Barbara could not prove her ownership to title that she'd had no right to a partition of my property and the non existing will was her only opportunity to show this proof. 
• Her during trial on April 10, 2023 the Transcripts show that the Court never considered or addressed the will.

Under line 5 from Barbara J. Humphrey's September 26, 2018 Affidavit for Transfer of real Property without Probate claimed "I am entitled to the real property per the will of the deceased and I have made an investigation and have been unable to determine any subsequent will;"

-------------------------------------------------------

Under -640- of the Nebraska Supreme Court's Opinions the high court made it clear that "when a partition action involves a dispute over ownership or title as well as a dispute over the method of partition, the parties have a RIGHT TO HAVE TITLE DETERMINED FIRST."

     This is a case where the only way for Ms. Humphrey to prove ownership to title is to show the will for verification and she did not nor could not.

•      Under this same site -640- the high court made it clear that (on appeal, this court recognized that the "sole matter contested was the construction and effect of the will.
•      Under -641- the high court continued with "On appeal, we determined that the case came within the third Petersen class, because "the decree settling the question of title in the case at bar determined the whole controversy."
•       "in making this determination, we recognized that the real controversy in the action was the issue of title and that the partition prayed for was only incidental, because if the plaintiffs did not succeed in establishing their title, they would have no right to partition."
• -----------------------------------------------------
• Then, under -644- the high court called Barbara Humphrey out by name when writing: Thus, if the allegation that Donald forgave the Loan is true, it would necessarily follow that Smith is the sole owner of the Home and Barbara does not have a right to partition.
• -------------------------------------------------------
• Donald's forgiveness of the Loan
•      Barbara Humphrey's May 29, 2020 Deposition offer the evidence needed for proving Donald did forgive the remainder of the loan angering Barbara and causing her to run out of her front door. Not only had Donald forgiven the remainder of the loan but he'd also instructed Barbara to write Smith an additional check for $10,000 which Barbara wrote on August 8, 2018. (See: #10 $10,000 Check)
•      The following are excerpt's from Barbara's May 29, 2020 Deposition that offer proof of Donald's forgiveness of the Loan.
• 46:16-18 Smith: I'm getting to a point here. Okay? When I explained that to him, the first thing he said was that we can afford to go up to ten; am I correct/
• 46:19 Barbara: Yes.
• 46:20 Smith: And it angered you?
• 46:21 Barbara: Yes.
• 46:22-24 Smith: The first words out of your mouth was, oh, so he's got the house and he's getting a new truck. And with that, you jumped up and you ran out the front door; am I correct?
• 46:25; 47:1 Matthew Saathoff: Listen to his question and answer his question.
• 47:2-3 Barbara: I was upset with that statement, yes, I went to the front door.
• 47:4 Smith: You went out the house?
• 47:5 Barbara: I went out of the house, yes.
• CROSS-EXAMINATION
• 80:15-16 Matthew Saathoff: Did you ever make the statement, "So now he has the house and a car?" Yes or no?
• 80:17 Barbara: A house and a truck.
• 80:18 Matthew Saathoff: A house and a truck.
• 80:19 Barbara: Yes.
• 80:20 Matthew Saathoff: Okay. And what did you mean by that?
• 80 21-22 Barbara: Well, Don had wanted to give him the house, the $25,000 that he put up front for the house.
• ---------------------------------------------
• Folk's, this was the proof sought by the Nebraska Supreme Court for proving Donald forgave the loan and leaving me, Smith, as the sole owner of the property.
• However, other than a false statement made on her Affidavit Barbara has no link to the property.
• In its May 27, 2020 Opinion's the Nebraska Supreme Court made it clear that if Barbara could not prove her ownership to title that she'd had no right to a partition of my property and the non existing will was her only opportunity to show this proof. 
• Her during trial on April 10, 2023 the Transcripts show that the Court never considered or addressed the will.

Under line 5 from Barbara J. Humphrey's September 26, 2018 Affidavit for Transfer of real Property without Probate claimed "I am entitled to the real property per the will of the deceased and I have made an investigation and have been unable to determine any subsequent will;"

-------------------------------------------------------

Under -640- of the Nebraska Supreme Court's Opinions the high court made it clear that "when a partition action involves a dispute over ownership or title as well as a dispute over the method of partition, the parties have a RIGHT TO HAVE TITLE DETERMINED FIRST."

     This is a case where the only way for Ms. Humphrey to prove ownership to title is to show the will for verification and she did not nor could not.

•      Under this same site -640- the high court made it clear that (on appeal, this court recognized that the "sole matter contested was the construction and effect of the will.
•      Under -641- the high court continued with "On appeal, we determined that the case came within the third Petersen class, because "the decree settling the question of title in the case at bar determined the whole controversy."
•       "in making this determination, we recognized that the real controversy in the action was the issue of title and that the partition prayed for was only incidental, because if the plaintiffs did not succeed in establishing their title, they would have no right to partition."
• -----------------------------------------------------
• Then, under -644- the high court called Barbara Humphrey out by name when writing: Thus, if the allegation that Donald forgave the Loan is true, it would necessarily follow that Smith is the sole owner of the Home and Barbara does not have a right to partition.
• -------------------------------------------------------
• Donald's forgiveness of the Loan
•      Barbara Humphrey's May 29, 2020 Deposition offer the evidence needed for proving Donald did forgive the remainder of the loan angering Barbara and causing her to run out of her front door. Not only had Donald forgiven the remainder of the loan but he'd also instructed Barbara to write Smith an additional check for $10,000 which Barbara wrote on August 8, 2018. (See: #10 $10,000 Check)
•      The following are excerpt's from Barbara's May 29, 2020 Deposition that offer proof of Donald's forgiveness of the Loan.
• 46:16-18 Smith: I'm getting to a point here. Okay? When I explained that to him, the first thing he said was that we can afford to go up to ten; am I correct/
• 46:19 Barbara: Yes.
• 46:20 Smith: And it angered you?
• 46:21 Barbara: Yes.
• 46:22-24 Smith: The first words out of your mouth was, oh, so he's got the house and he's getting a new truck. And with that, you jumped up and you ran out the front door; am I correct?
• 46:25; 47:1 Matthew Saathoff: Listen to his question and answer his question.
• 47:2-3 Barbara: I was upset with that statement, yes, I went to the front door.
• 47:4 Smith: You went out the house?
• 47:5 Barbara: I went out of the house, yes.
• CROSS-EXAMINATION
• 80:15-16 Matthew Saathoff: Did you ever make the statement, "So now he has the house and a car?" Yes or no?
• 80:17 Barbara: A house and a truck.
• 80:18 Matthew Saathoff: A house and a truck.
• 80:19 Barbara: Yes.
• 80:20 Matthew Saathoff: Okay. And what did you mean by that?
• 80 21-22 Barbara: Well, Don had wanted to give him the house, the $25,000 that he put up front for the house.
• ---------------------------------------------
• Folk's, this was the proof sought by the Nebraska Supreme Court for proving Donald forgave the loan and leaving me, Smith, as the sole owner of the property.
• However, other than a false statement made on her Affidavit Barbara has no link to the property.
• In its May 27, 2020 Opinion's the Nebraska Supreme Court made it clear that if Barbara could not prove her ownership to title that she'd had no right to a partition of my property and the non existing will was her only opportunity to show this proof. 
• Her during trial on April 11, 2023 the Transcripts show that the Court never considered or addressed the will.

Under line 5 from Barbara J. Humphrey's September 26, 2018 Affidavit for Transfer of real Property without Probate claimed "I am entitled to the real property per the will of the deceased and I have made an investigation and have been unable to determine any subsequent will;"

-------------------------------------------------------

Under -640- of the Nebraska Supreme Court's Opinions the high court made it clear that "when a partition action involves a dispute over ownership or title as well as a dispute over the method of partition, the parties have a RIGHT TO HAVE TITLE DETERMINED FIRST."

     This is a case where the only way for Ms. Humphrey to prove ownership to title is to show the will for verification and she did not nor could not.

•      Under this same site -640- the high court made it clear that (on appeal, this court recognized that the "sole matter contested was the construction and effect of the will.
•      Under -641- the high court continued with "On appeal, we determined that the case came within the third Petersen class, because "the decree settling the question of title in the case at bar determined the whole controversy."
•       "in making this determination, we recognized that the real controversy in the action was the issue of title and that the partition prayed for was only incidental, because if the plaintiffs did not succeed in establishing their title, they would have no right to partition."
• -----------------------------------------------------
• Then, under -644- the high court called Barbara Humphrey out by name when writing: Thus, if the allegation that Donald forgave the Loan is true, it would necessarily follow that Smith is the sole owner of the Home and Barbara does not have a right to partition.
• -------------------------------------------------------
• Donald's forgiveness of the Loan
•      Barbara Humphrey's May 29, 2020 Deposition offer the evidence needed for proving Donald did forgive the remainder of the loan angering Barbara and causing her to run out of her front door. Not only had Donald forgiven the remainder of the loan but he'd also instructed Barbara to write Smith an additional check for $10,000 which Barbara wrote on August 8, 2018. (See: #10 $10,000 Check)
•      The following are excerpt's from Barbara's May 29, 2020 Deposition that offer proof of Donald's forgiveness of the Loan.
• 46:16-18 Smith: I'm getting to a point here. Okay? When I explained that to him, the first thing he said was that we can afford to go up to ten; am I correct/
• 46:19 Barbara: Yes.
• 46:20 Smith: And it angered you?
• 46:21 Barbara: Yes.
• 46:22-24 Smith: The first words out of your mouth was, oh, so he's got the house and he's getting a new truck. And with that, you jumped up and you ran out the front door; am I correct?
• 46:25; 47:1 Matthew Saathoff: Listen to his question and answer his question.
• 47:2-3 Barbara: I was upset with that statement, yes, I went to the front door.
• 47:4 Smith: You went out the house?
• 47:5 Barbara: I went out of the house, yes.
• CROSS-EXAMINATION
• 80:15-16 Matthew Saathoff: Did you ever make the statement, "So now he has the house and a car?" Yes or no?
• 80:17 Barbara: A house and a truck.
• 80:18 Matthew Saathoff: A house and a truck.
• 80:19 Barbara: Yes.
• 80:20 Matthew Saathoff: Okay. And what did you mean by that?
• 80 21-22 Barbara: Well, Don had wanted to give him the house, the $25,000 that he put up front for the house.
• ---------------------------------------------
• Folk's, this was the proof sought by the Nebraska Supreme Court for proving Donald forgave the loan and leaving me, Smith, as the sole owner of the property.
• However, other than a false statement made on her Affidavit Barbara has no link to the property.
• In its May 27, 2020 Opinion's the Nebraska Supreme Court made it clear that if Barbara could not prove her ownership to title that she'd had no right to a partition of my property and the non existing will was her only opportunity to show this proof. 
• Her during trial on May 23, 2023 the Transcripts show that the Court never considered or addressed the will.

Under line 5 from Barbara J. Humphrey's September 26, 2018 Affidavit for Transfer of real Property without Probate claimed "I am entitled to the real property per the will of the deceased and I have made an investigation and have been unable to determine any subsequent will;"

-------------------------------------------------------

Under -640- of the Nebraska Supreme Court's Opinions the high court made it clear that "when a partition action involves a dispute over ownership or title as well as a dispute over the method of partition, the parties have a RIGHT TO HAVE TITLE DETERMINED FIRST."

     This is a case where the only way for Ms. Humphrey to prove ownership to title is to show the will for verification and she did not nor could not.

•      Under this same site -640- the high court made it clear that (on appeal, this court recognized that the "sole matter contested was the construction and effect of the will.
•      Under -641- the high court continued with "On appeal, we determined that the case came within the third Petersen class, because "the decree settling the question of title in the case at bar determined the whole controversy."
•       "in making this determination, we recognized that the real controversy in the action was the issue of title and that the partition prayed for was only incidental, because if the plaintiffs did not succeed in establishing their title, they would have no right to partition."
• -----------------------------------------------------
• Then, under -644- the high court called Barbara Humphrey out by name when writing: Thus, if the allegation that Donald forgave the Loan is true, it would necessarily follow that Smith is the sole owner of the Home and Barbara does not have a right to partition.
• -------------------------------------------------------
• Donald's forgiveness of the Loan
•      Barbara Humphrey's May 29, 2020 Deposition offer the evidence needed for proving Donald did forgive the remainder of the loan angering Barbara and causing her to run out of her front door. Not only had Donald forgiven the remainder of the loan but he'd also instructed Barbara to write Smith an additional check for $10,000 which Barbara wrote on August 8, 2018. (See: #10 $10,000 Check)
•      The following are excerpt's from Barbara's May 29, 2020 Deposition that offer proof of Donald's forgiveness of the Loan.
• 46:16-18 Smith: I'm getting to a point here. Okay? When I explained that to him, the first thing he said was that we can afford to go up to ten; am I correct/
• 46:19 Barbara: Yes.
• 46:20 Smith: And it angered you?
• 46:21 Barbara: Yes.
• 46:22-24 Smith: The first words out of your mouth was, oh, so he's got the house and he's getting a new truck. And with that, you jumped up and you ran out the front door; am I correct?
• 46:25; 47:1 Matthew Saathoff: Listen to his question and answer his question.
• 47:2-3 Barbara: I was upset with that statement, yes, I went to the front door.
• 47:4 Smith: You went out the house?
• 47:5 Barbara: I went out of the house, yes.
• CROSS-EXAMINATION
• 80:15-16 Matthew Saathoff: Did you ever make the statement, "So now he has the house and a car?" Yes or no?
• 80:17 Barbara: A house and a truck.
• 80:18 Matthew Saathoff: A house and a truck.
• 80:19 Barbara: Yes.
• 80:20 Matthew Saathoff: Okay. And what did you mean by that?
• 80 21-22 Barbara: Well, Don had wanted to give him the house, the $25,000 that he put up front for the house.
• ---------------------------------------------
• Folk's, this was the proof sought by the Nebraska Supreme Court for proving Donald forgave the loan and leaving me, Smith, as the sole owner of the property.
• However, other than a false statement made on her Affidavit Barbara has no link to the property.
• In its May 27, 2020 Opinion's the Nebraska Supreme Court made it clear that if Barbara could not prove her ownership to title that she'd had no right to a partition of my property and the non existing will was her only opportunity to show this proof. 
• Her during trial on May 23, 2023 the Transcripts show that the Court never considered or addressed the will.