In re Estate of Pluhacek, 296 Neb. 528

Dorothy (Mary) Pluhacek died July 1, 2015; Hickey (Provincial Superioress) sought probate of a document dated July 22, 1936 as Pluhacek’s will and nominated herself as personal representative.
The proffered instrument was a preprinted form containing typewritten, printed, and handwritten insertions, 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 material provisions were handwritten, and treated it as a holographic will under § 30-2328.
On formal probate after trial, the county court again denied probate, finding no testimony establishing the handwriting as Pluhacek’s and expressing doubt about the validity of a 1936 holographic-style instrument.
Hickey appealed; the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed de novo the legal question whether the instrument satisfied § 30-2327’s “in writing” requirement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the instrument is "in writing" under § 30-2327 when it is partly printed/typewritten and partly handwritten	Hickey: instrument satisfies § 30-2327 because it is signed by the testator and two witnesses despite mixed media	County court: handwritten portions mean the document is not "in writing" under § 30-2327 and thus not a valid formally executed will	Court held the mixed-format document meets the "in writing" requirement of § 30-2327 and is validly executed
Whether the instrument should instead be treated as a holographic will under § 30-2328 and therefore fail for lack of proof of testator handwriting	Hickey: unnecessary to invoke holographic-will statute because requirements of § 30-2327 are satisfied	County court: treated instrument as holographic (or hybrid holographic) and found lack of handwriting proof and testamentary intent in handwritten portions alone	Court held examining holographic-will statute unnecessary once § 30-2327 is satisfied; county court erred in treating it as holographic
Whether recognition of holographic form in 1936 would affect validity under § 30-2331 (choice-of-law)	Hickey: not relevant because § 30-2327 governs and is satisfied	County court: argued holographic wills not recognized in Nebraska in 1936, so § 30-2331 argument fails	Court did not rely on § 30-2331; reversed probate denial under § 30-2327 and remanded for formal probate

In re Estate of Balvin, 295 Neb. 346, 888 N.W.2d 499 (standard of review for probate legal questions)
In re Estate of Flider, 213 Neb. 153, 328 N.W.2d 197 (elements required by § 30-2327)
Cummings v. Curtiss, 219 Neb. 106, 361 N.W.2d 508 (two-witness requirement under § 30-2327)
In re Estate of Foxley, 254 Neb. 204, 575 N.W.2d 150 (discussion of holographic codicil and handwriting requirement)