In re Estate of Pluhacek, 296 Neb. 528

Dorothy (Mary) Pluhacek died in 2015; Margaret Hickey (Provincial Superioress) submitted a 1936 document as Pluhacek’s will and sought appointment as personal representative.
The 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, concluding the document was not a will under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2327 because portions were handwritten and thus required holographic-will analysis under § 30-2328.
Hickey filed for formal probate; after trial the county court again denied probate, finding (1) no witness testified to authenticate Pluhacek’s handwriting and (2) the document was a hybrid form/holographic instrument that failed holographic standards and could not be validated under 1936 law.
The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed de novo whether the document satisfied § 30-2327 and whether the county court erred in treating it chiefly as a holographic will.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the instrument is "in writing" under § 30-2327	Hickey: the mixed printed/typed/handwritten form satisfies the statute because it is a written document signed and witnessed	County court: substantial handwritten portions meant it was not "in writing" and thus required holographic analysis	Court: Reversed — mixed-form documents are "in writing" under § 30-2327 when signed and witnessed
Whether two-witness requirements of § 30-2327 were satisfied	Hickey: signatures show Pluhacek signed and two witnesses attested	County court: did not dispute signatures but treated overall form as invalid, so witnesses irrelevant unless holographic	Court: Two-witness requirement met; no need for holographic route
Whether the document should be treated as a holographic will under § 30-2328	County court: treated as a possible holographic or hybrid will, requiring handwriting authentication and failure on that basis	Hickey: unnecessary because § 30-2327 controls and is satisfied	Court: Erroneous to recharacterize a valid § 30-2327 will as holographic; holographic statute is an exception, not a primary test
Applicability of 1936 law (§ 30-2331 argument)	County court: holographic wills not recognized in 1936, so cannot validate under law-of-place or domicile provisions	Hickey: unnecessary if § 30-2327 is satisfied now	Court: Moot — since § 30-2327 is satisfied, reach statutory execution conclusion without relying on 1936-law argument

In re Estate of Balvin, 295 Neb. 346, 888 N.W.2d 499 (standards of review in probate appeals)
In re Estate of Flider, 213 Neb. 153, 328 N.W.2d 197 (requirements of execution under statute)
Cummings v. Curtiss, 219 Neb. 106, 361 N.W.2d 508 (two-witness requirement under execution statute)
In re Estate of Foxley, 254 Neb. 204, 575 N.W.2d 150 (discussed in context of holographic codicil precedent)
Stuck v. Howard, 213 Ala. 184, 104 So. 500 (historic authority recognizing mixed typed/handwritten instruments as "written")
Succession of Bellanca v. Schiro, 517 So. 2d 1235 (court held "written" includes typewritten with handwriting insertions)

The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed and remanded with instructions to admit the will to formal probate and grant relief consistent with the will.