In re Estate of Pluhacek, 296 Neb. 528

Dorothy (Mary) Pluhacek died in 2015; Margaret Hickey, Provincial Superioress of the Notre Dame Sisters, sought probate of a 1936 document as Pluhacek’s will and appointment as personal representative.
The submitted document combined preprinted form text, typewritten material, and handwritten insertions; it was signed by Pluhacek and witnessed by two 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 evaluated as a holographic will under § 30-2328.
On formal probate after trial, the county court again denied probate, finding no evidence proving the handwritten portions were Pluhacek’s handwriting (so not a valid holographic will), and concluding holographic wills were not recognized in 1936 under choice-of-law analysis.
Hickey appealed; the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed de novo whether the document satisfied § 30-2327’s execution requirements and reversed, ordering formal probate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the mixed-format document is "in writing" under § 30-2327 (execution)	Hickey: The will is valid under § 30-2327 because it is in writing, signed by testator, and witnessed by two persons despite mixed typed/printed/handwritten format	County court: Substantial handwritten material meant the document was not "in writing" under § 30-2327 and thus was not validly executed	Held: Reversed — mixed format satisfies "in writing"; document met § 30-2327 (signed and two witnesses) and was validly executed
Whether the instrument must be treated as a holographic will under § 30-2328	Hickey: No need — § 30-2327 satisfied, so holographic statute is inapplicable	County court: Because material provisions were handwritten, it must be tested as holographic; no witness established handwriting, so invalid	Held: Court declined holographic analysis as unnecessary once § 30-2327 was met; county court erred in applying § 30-2328
Choice-of-law / vintage-of-execution argument (1936)	Hickey: Not necessary once § 30-2327 satisfied; law recognizes mixed-format writings as "writing"	County court: Holographic wills not recognized in 1936, so cannot validate instrument under § 30-2331 conduit	Held: Not reached as dispositive — appellate court decided the will was valid under current § 30-2327 and remanded for probate

In re Estate of Balvin, 295 Neb. 346 (review standard for probate appeals)
In re Estate of Flider, 213 Neb. 153 (requirements for validly executed will under Nebraska law)
Cummings v. Curtiss, 219 Neb. 106 (two-witness requirement under Nebraska execution statute)
In re Estate of Foxley, 254 Neb. 204 (discussed by county court in relation to handwritten codicils/hybrid instruments)
Stuck v. Howard, 213 Ala. 184 (illustrative authority that mixed typewritten/handwritten instruments may satisfy "written" requirement)
Reynolds v. Massey, 219 Ala. (overruled in part; historical authority on form of wills)
Succession of Bellanca v. Schiro, 517 So. 2d 1235 (court recognizing that statutes requiring a will to be "written" include typewritten documents with handwritten portions)