In re Estate of Psota, 297 Neb. 570

Sharlene Psota, after marrying Eldon Psota in 2011, signed a prenuptial agreement that disclaimed all rights to the other spouse’s property and waived spousal rights and allowances.
Eldon’s will, executed years before the marriage, did not bequeath anything to Sharlene, and Eldon’s estate consisted of about $10 million in assets.
Sharlene filed to be treated as an omitted spouse under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2320, seeking a share of Eldon’s estate despite the prenuptial waiver.
The Estate argued the waiver was enforceable under § 30-2316, as Sharlene knowingly and voluntarily signed it.
The county court held the prenuptial agreement valid under § 30-2316, and denied Sharlene’s omitted-spouse application; Sharlene timely appealed.
Nebraska Supreme Court affirms, holding that a surviving spouse must prove both (b)(1) voluntariness and (b)(2) unconscionability/adequate knowledge to defeat the waiver under § 30-2316(b).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Burden of proof under § 30-2316(b)(1)-(2)	Sharlene argues Edwards/Mamot factors apply to voluntariness, making proof broader.	Estate argues § 30-2316(b) requires proof of both voluntariness and knowledge/disclosure separately.	Burden requires proof of both voluntariness and adequate knowledge (b(1) and (b)(2)).
Voluntariness standard under § 30-2316(b)(1)	Sharlene contends voluntariness entails more than signing, invoking Edwards/Mamot factors.	Estate asserts voluntariness stands as signing voluntarily; Edwards/Mamot not applicable to § 30-2316.	Court adopts narrow voluntariness: established by signing voluntarily; Edwards/Mamot factors not applied.
Effect of omission of ‘or’ in § 30-2316(b)	Sharlene urges an 'or' burden split akin to § 42-1006(1).	Estate emphasizes plain language requires dual proof under (b)(1) and (b)(2).	No reading in an implied ‘or’; party must satisfy both subsections to unenforce the waiver.
Adequate disclosure and knowledge (b)(2)	Sharlene argues lack of complete disclosures in Exhibit A/B undermines knowledge.	Exhibit disclosures were broad; parties acknowledged general knowledge of assets.	Court did not reach unconscionability/knowledge analysis since voluntariness failed to be shown.

In re Estate of Pluhacek, 296 Neb. 528 (2017) (discusses similar unconscionability/disclosure standards in probate context)
Mamot v. Mamot, 283 Neb. 659 (2012) (establishes burden to show unenforceability of premarital agreement)
Edwards v. Edwards, 16 Neb. App. 297 (2008) (five-factor test for premarital agreements; aids analysis of voluntariness)