In re Estate of Pluhacek, 296 Neb. 528

Dorothy (Mary) Pluhacek died July 1, 2015; Hickey (Provincial Superioress of the School Sisters de N.D.) submitted a purported will dated July 22, 1936 and sought appointment as personal representative.
The document combined preprinted form language, typewritten material, and handwritten insertions; it was signed by Pluhacek and attested by two witnesses (also Notre Dame Sisters).
The Douglas County Court denied informal probate sua sponte, reasoning that because material provisions were handwritten the document was not "in writing" under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2327 and therefore had to be treated (and proved) as a holographic will under § 30-2328.
Hickey filed for formal probate; after trial the county court again denied formal probate, finding no evidence verifying the handwritten portions were Pluhacek’s and expressing doubt about treating the instrument as a valid holographic or hybrid holographic will.
Hickey appealed; the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed de novo whether the instrument satisfied the statutory execution requirements of § 30-2327.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the instrument is "in writing" and validly executed under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2327	Hickey: The mixed form (printed/typewritten/handwritten) is nonetheless "in writing," and the will is signed and witnessed, satisfying § 30-2327	County court: Because material provisions were handwritten, the instrument was not "in writing" under § 30-2327 and thus not validly executed	Held: Reversed — the mixed-form document is "in writing," signed by testator and two witnesses, satisfying § 30-2327
Whether the instrument must be proved as a holographic will (§ 30-2328)	Hickey: No need to invoke holographic-will statute because § 30-2327 requirements are met	County court: Treated instrument as holographic or hybrid and required handwriting proof under § 30-2328	Held: Court rejected this approach; § 30-2327 governs when its requirements are met, so holographic analysis unnecessary
Whether § 30-2331 (validity under foreign/former law at execution) saves the instrument if holographic	County court: Argued holographic wills were not recognized in 1936, so § 30-2331 would not validate the instrument	Hickey: Primary reliance was on § 30-2327 rather than § 30-2331	Held: Court did not need to reach § 30-2331 because § 30-2327 was satisfied

In re Estate of Balvin, 295 Neb. 346, 888 N.W.2d 499 (Neb. 2016) (standard of review for probate matters)
In re Estate of Flider, 213 Neb. 153, 328 N.W.2d 197 (Neb. 1982) (requirements for valid execution under the execution statute)
Cummings v. Curtiss, 219 Neb. 106, 361 N.W.2d 508 (Neb. 1985) (two witnesses required under the execution statute)
In re Estate of Foxley, 254 Neb. 204, 575 N.W.2d 150 (Neb. 1998) (discussed holographic codicil and handwriting-requirements precedent)
Succession of Bellanca v. Schiro, 517 So. 2d 1235 (La. App. 1987) (typewritten will with handwritten portions satisfies a "written" requirement)