This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Jordon died on August 28, 2019. Prior to his death he executed a will, which established the Jordon R. Wiggins Family Trust (the Trust) for his children's benefit. Jordon's father, Robert Wiggins, was appointed personal representative of Jordon's estate on October 17, 2019. Jordon had been married to Allison Hardy (P) , and two minor children, Elizabeth Wiggins and Leah Wiggins, were born to them during the marriage. The divorce decree required Jordon and P each to 'maintain a life insurance policy' of at least $250,000 'to provide for the minor children' if Jordon or P died. On December 20, 2019, P brought a claim for $250,000 plus interest against the estate on the children's behalf, alleging that the personal representative had not yet identified any life insurance policy maintained by Jordon for the children's benefit. Jordon's former employer informed Jordon's brother, Jason Wiggins (D), that D was the sole beneficiary of Jordon's two employer-provided life insurance policies, valued at $360,000 total. On June 2, 2020, D, as an interested party; P, on behalf of the minor children; and Robert, as personal representative, agreed to settle P's claim against the estate. The agreement then called for D to 'gift' $250,000 of the insurance proceeds that he received to the Trust, whereupon P would withdraw the claim. After they entered the settlement agreement, the parties learned that Jordon's daughter Elizabeth was actually the beneficiary of one of Jordon's life insurance policies, while D was the beneficiary of the other policy. The insurer paid $120,000 'directly' to Elizabeth; this money was not placed in the Trust. The insurer also paid $240,000 to d, who then paid $130,000 into the Trust and retained $110,000. P took issue with D's action, arguing that he was required under the divorce decree, the settlement agreement, and Nebraska law to pay the entire $240,000 into the Trust for the children. The parties asked the county court to declare their rights and obligations as to the life insurance proceeds. D argued that the settlement agreement should be rescinded on various grounds, including the parties' mutual mistake as to Jordon's life insurance coverage. P countered that there was no basis for reformation or rescission, because the agreement in its written form correctly expressed the parties' intent at the time they entered the agreement and P assumed the risk of mistake. The county court ruled in P's favor. The court found that Jordon had partially satisfied his obligations under the divorce decree by providing a $120,000 policy for Elizabeth's benefit and that the use of the word 'gift' in the settlement agreement reflected the parties' understanding that D had no legal obligation to pay any life insurance proceeds to the Trust. The county court ordered that the $130,000 that D paid into the Trust satisfied his obligation under the settlement agreement, because he was entitled to a credit of $120,000 for the life insurance proceeds that Elizabeth received. Believing that this $120,000 had been placed in the Trust, the court ordered that the $250,000 received into the Trust for the children's benefit satisfied the claim against the estate. It ordered that the settlement agreement be reformed accordingly. P appealed

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.