In re Estate of Pluhacek, 296 Neb. 528

Dorothy (Mary) Pluhacek died July 1, 2015; a purported will dated July 22, 1936 was submitted for probate by Margaret Hickey (Provincial Superioress) naming the School Sisters de N.D., Inc. as beneficiary and the Provincial Superioress as executor.
The document is a preprinted form containing typewritten and handwritten insertions, signed by Pluhacek and witnessed by two Notre Dame Sisters.
The Douglas County Court denied informal and later formal probate, concluding the document was not “in writing” under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2327 because material provisions were handwritten, and treated the instrument as a holographic (handwritten) will under § 30-2328.
The county court found no witness testimony establishing that the handwritten portions were in Pluhacek’s handwriting and questioned whether holographic wills were recognized in 1936.
Hickey appealed; the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed whether the document satisfied § 30-2327’s execution requirements and whether the county court erred by relegating the instrument to holographic-will analysis.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 1936 instrument is a validly executed will under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2327 (writing, testator’s signature, two witnesses)	Hickey: The instrument is "in writing" despite mixed printed/typed/handwritten content and meets § 30-2327 (signed by testator and two witnesses)	County court: Substantial handwritten material means it is not "in writing" under § 30-2327; must be tested as a holographic will	Court: Reversed—mixed printed/typed/handwritten documents satisfy the "in writing" requirement; instrument validly executed under § 30-2327
Whether the instrument must be treated as a holographic will and, if so, whether it was admissible given lack of handwriting proof and 1936 law	Hickey: No need to invoke holographic-will statute because § 30-2327 is satisfied	County court: Because material provisions are handwritten, it is a holographic (or hybrid) instrument; lacking handwriting identification and possibly invalid in 1936	Court: County court erred to analyze under § 30-2328; holographic-will analysis unnecessary once § 30-2327 requirements are met; remanded to admit will to formal probate

In re Estate of Balvin, 295 Neb. 346, 888 N.W.2d 499 (Neb. 2016) (standard of review in probate appeals)
In re Estate of Flider, 213 Neb. 153, 328 N.W.2d 197 (Neb. 1982) (requirements for valid execution under statute)
Cummings v. Curtiss, 219 Neb. 106, 361 N.W.2d 508 (Neb. 1985) (two-attesting-witness requirement)
In re Estate of Foxley, 254 Neb. 204, 575 N.W.2d 150 (Neb. 1998) (discussion of handwritten codicils and holographic issues)
Stuck v. Howard, 213 Ala. 184, 104 So. 500 (Ala. 1925) (authority recognizing mixed-form writings satisfy writing requirement)
Succession of Bellanca v. Schiro, 517 So. 2d 1235 (La. App. 1987) (typewritten will with handwritten portions meets "written" requirement)