Bohling v. Bohling, 309 Neb. 625

Decedent Willis D. Bohling executed a self‑proved will on July 13, 2015, appointing daughter Kimberly as personal representative and providing: "All of the balance residue and remainder of my Estate . . . I do hereby give devise and bequeath unto my daughter, Kimberly Bohling."
Robert (son) objected in county probate, arguing the sole dispositional clause was incomplete/uncertain, and alleging lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence by Kimberly; the contest was transferred to district court under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30‑2429.01.
On remand after an initial reversal for record defects, both parties submitted affidavits: attorney Morrissey and Kimberly supported execution, capacity, and absence of undue influence; Robert and several friends offered affidavits asserting family expectations of an equal split and opining Willis would not intentionally disinherit Robert.
The district court treated the clause as a valid general residuary/devise, found the self‑proved will created prima facie proof of capacity, concluded Robert's affidavits contained unsupported opinions, and granted summary judgment for Kimberly.
The Nebraska Supreme Court limited review to validity (not construction) of the will, rejected Robert's challenges to uncertainty, capacity, and undue influence, and affirmed the district court's judgment that the 2015 will is valid and probatable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Robert)	Defendant's Argument (Kimberly)	Held
Whether the sole dispositional provision is too uncertain/incomplete to be a valid testamentary devise	Clause only transfers the "balance, residue and remainder" ("leftovers"), so it fails to devise the entire estate and is uncertain	Clause operates as a valid residuary/general devise that passes all property owned at death; not too indefinite	Court: Clause is sufficiently definite; does not fail for uncertainty and is probatable
Whether Willis lacked testamentary capacity when will executed	Affidavits and family history suggest Willis would not disinherit Robert, implying incapacity or mistake	Self‑proved will and attorney Morrissey’s sworn statement establish capacity; no admissible factual evidence rebutting presumption	Court: Self‑proved will creates prima facie proof of capacity; Robert’s affidavits were unsupported opinions and did not create a material factual dispute
Whether the will was the product of Kimberly’s undue influence	Kimberly was frequently present and allegedly pressured Willis to make a will leaving her everything	No factual evidence showing the elements of undue influence; Morrissey observed free and voluntary execution	Court: Robert failed to present evidence showing how/when undue influence occurred; opinions/speculation insufficient to create factual issue

In re Estate of Casselman, 219 Neb. 516 (1985) (entire codicil invalid where dispositions were conflicting, indefinite, and uncertain)
Kepley v. Caldwell, 96 Neb. 748 (1914) (residuary bequests may be invalid when legatees and gifts are too indefinite)
In re Estate of Wagner, 246 Neb. 625 (1994) (self‑proved will raises prima facie proof of testamentary capacity)
Sundermann v. Hy‑Vee, 306 Neb. 749 (2020) (standard for reviewing summary judgment; view evidence in light most favorable to nonmovant)
In re Estate of Clinger, 292 Neb. 237 (2015) (allocation of burdens in will contests and related standards for contested issues)