Your state's pack. New issues arrive periodically on Mondays. Bookmark it. I built this for the Nebraska T&E solo who knows the Probate Code cold but still loses an afternoon a week tracking the moving Medicaid pieces — and who needs to flag the inheritance-tax and estate-recovery exposure that ride along with every TOD deed.
For licensed attorneys. This pack is general legal information and professional commentary for practicing attorneys — it is not legal advice, does not apply to any specific matter, and creates no attorney-client relationship. Verify every authority against the cited primary source before relying on it with a client. Published by Mike Moss, a Utah-admitted attorney, as an AI-enablement information product; it is not an offer of legal services and is not a representation that the author is admitted to practice in your jurisdiction.
Three developments I think actually matter to a Nebraska T&E solo. Each has a read that lands on your practice specifically — and each comes with a reachable citation so you can verify it yourself before you use it with a client.
LB867 (109th Leg., 2026) passed 49-0 and takes effect immediately, repealing §§ 68-921 through 68-925 and amending the recovery statute (§ 68-919) to drop the cross-reference to spousal protection. The Nebraska spousal-asset-protection framework is gone; planning resets to federal CSRA/MMNA only.
This narrows a planning lever that existed for the community spouse. Re-paper your married-couple Medicaid plans around federal spousal-impoverishment rules, not the repealed state provisions. Confirm the operative effective date in the enrolled bill before relying on it.
Neb. LB867 (109th Leg., 2026, enacted 49-0) · nebraskalegislature.gov
The Nebraska Uniform Real Property Transfer on Death Act (§§ 76-3401 et seq.) requires the deed to warn that the beneficiary is personally liable for Medicaid reimbursement and that the property remains subject to Nebraska inheritance tax.
Two traps in one instrument: the TOD beneficiary takes the recovery exposure, and Nebraska's county-level inheritance tax still bites (1% class I after $100,000; 11% / 15% for remoter takers). Plan both.
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 76-3401 et seq. · nebraskalegislature.gov
Maximum CSRA is $162,660 (minimum $32,532); Nebraska applies the $752,000 home-equity limit (not the higher tier).
Two places this lands: community-spouse protection math and high-value-home clients. Flag the OBBBA flat $1,000,000 cap (eff. Jan 1, 2028) now.
42 U.S.C. § 1396p · CMS 2026 Standards (medicaid.gov)
Decisions that bind a Nebraska practitioner — the Nebraska Supreme Court and the Nebraska Court of Appeals, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska, and the Eighth Circuit — read for what actually changes how you draft, advise, and plan. Trusts and estates broadly, not Medicaid alone: wills and capacity, undue influence, fiduciary duty, trust construction, and estate recovery. One read, the holding, and the official cite.
George Kubat, with his longtime friend and attorney Thomas Pansing drafting, executed a trust and will, then over years amended the trust to leave growing bequests to his girlfriend — ending in deathbed amendments (executed in the hospital by Pansing’s office) that raised her share toward $3 million. One of George’s four children, Christine Reilly, after losing the underlying will and trust contests, sued Pansing and his firm for malpractice — individually and derivatively for the trust and estate — to recover the attorney fees she spent challenging the changes. The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the lawyer on every theory. Standing: under the Nebraska Probate Code the right to sue to recover estate assets resides in the personal representative (or a court-appointed special administrator), not a devisee; here a special administrator and trustee, Security National, had been appointed and declined to sue, and Reilly neither sued as “guardian” on behalf of all heirs and beneficiaries nor joined the administrator as a defendant, so the narrow refusal-to-act exception did not apply. Duty: there was no attorney-client relationship between Reilly and Pansing (the change discussions happened in front of family members, defeating any privilege), and under the six-factor Perez v. Stern balancing test the drafting attorney owed her no duty as a nonclient — the transaction was intended to carry out George’s wishes, not to benefit her.
Carry two cautions. For any fiduciary recovery or fee-shifting theory: route claims to recover for an estate or trust through the personal representative, special administrator, or trustee — a beneficiary’s derivative suit survives only in the narrow case where the fiduciary cannot or will not act, and even then you generally must sue on behalf of all the beneficiaries and join the fiduciary; a lone disappointed heir suing for her own fees will be dismissed for want of standing. For the drafting attorney, this is the protective side of the same coin — Nebraska keeps the duty running to the client whose intent you are executing, and an adult child adverse to the client’s late-life changes is not your client merely because she sat in on the calls; document who your client is and that the plan reflects the client’s own instructions.
Reilly v. Pansing Hogan Ernst & Bachman LLP, 34 Neb. App. 285 (Neb. Ct. App. May 26, 2026) (published) · official opinion — nebraska.gov
This week in Nebraska for the T&E solo with Medicaid-planning clients: what the Nebraska State Bar, DHHS, the Unicameral, and CMS put in front of you.
The bar CLE calendar, DHHS bulletins, the Unicameral's bill tracker, and the federal standards all publish on different schedules. This is that sift, already done, with the link on each item.