In re Estate of Pluhacek, 296 Neb. 528

Dorothy (Mary) Pluhacek died July 1, 2015; Hickey (Provincial Superioress of the Omaha Notre Dame Sisters) sought probate of a 1936 document as Pluhacek’s will and appointment as personal representative.
The tendered instrument was a preprinted form with typewritten and handwritten insertions, signed by Pluhacek and witnessed by two Sisters on July 22, 1936.
The Douglas County Court denied informal probate, reasoning that because material provisions were handwritten the document was not "in writing" under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2327 and treated it as a holographic will under § 30-2328.
On formal probate after a trial, the county court again denied probate, finding no evidence identifying the handwriting as Pluhacek’s and concluding the instrument was an invalid "hybrid" holographic will; it also rejected reliance on § 30-2331 (choice-of-law) given the 1936 execution date.
Hickey appealed; the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed de novo whether the instrument satisfied § 30-2327 and whether the county court erred in treating it as an invalid holographic will.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Hickey)	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the instrument is a validly executed will under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2327 ("in writing", signed by testator, and signed by two witnesses)	The document, though partly preprinted/typed and partly handwritten, was "in writing," signed by Pluhacek, and witnessed by two Sisters — satisfying § 30-2327	County court: substantial handwritten portions meant it was not "in writing" under § 30-2327, so § 30-2328 (holographic) analysis was required	Held: The instrument satisfied § 30-2327; "in writing" includes mixed-type documents; probate must be granted
Whether the instrument should instead be judged as a holographic will under § 30-2328	N/A (Hickey argued § 30-2327 controlled)	County court: treated instrument as a holographic or "hybrid" holographic will; found insufficient proof that handwritten material was Pluhacek’s handwriting and that handwritten portions alone showed testamentary intent	Held: County court erred to recharacterize the instrument as holographic because § 30-2327 was satisfied; no need to reach § 30-2328
Whether choice-of-law (validity under 1936 law) defeats probate under § 30-2331	The will validly executed under current § 30-2327; choice-of-law not a barrier	County court: holographic wills were not recognized in Nebraska in 1936, so § 30-2331 would not help if instrument were holographic	Held: Not reached; because § 30-2327 is met, historical recognition of holographic wills is immaterial

In re Estate of Balvin, 295 Neb. 346 (reciting standard of review for probate appeals)
In re Estate of Flider, 213 Neb. 153 (defining statutory execution requirements for wills)
Cummings v. Curtiss, 219 Neb. 106 (confirming two-witness requirement)
In re Estate of Foxley, 254 Neb. 204 (discussed by county court regarding handwritten codicil/hybrid instruments)
Succession of Bellanca v. Schiro, 517 So. 2d 1235 (holding that a partly typewritten instrument with handwritten portions satisfies a statutory "writing" requirement)