In re Estate of Psota
297 Neb. 570
Neb.2017Background
- Sharlene Psota sought to be treated as an omitted spouse under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2320 after Eldon R. Psota died without benefiting her in his will.
- The parties entered into a prenuptial agreement shortly before their 2011 marriage, with both disclosing property; the agreement stated they waived all interests in each other’s property and waived several statutory rights.
- Eldon died in 2013, leaving an estate valued around $10 million, largely real property, with no provision for Sharlene in his will.
- Sharlene filed under § 30-2320 to elect as an omitted spouse; Eldon’s estate argued she waived her rights via the prenuptial agreement, which was admitted at a hearing.
- The county court found the prenup valid as a waiver under § 30-2316, and denied Sharlene’s omitted-spouse application; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.
- The central legal question is whether a surviving spouse must satisfy both § 30-2316(b)(1) and (b)(2) to prove a waiver is unenforceable, given the lack of a conjunctive connector in § 30-2316(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Must a surviving spouse prove voluntariness under §30-2316(b)(1)? | Psota argues Edwards/Mamot factors show nonvoluntariness. | Brown contends the waiver was voluntary as found by the probate court. | Yes, voluntary; waiver enforced. |
| Need to prove unconscionability or lack of disclosure under §30-2316(b)(2) if voluntariness is satisfied? | Psota contends b(2) requirements still apply for unenforceability. | Estate argues b(2) is not reached if voluntariness fails or is proven. | Not reached on appeal because voluntariness was proved. |
| Does the lack of a connecting word “or” between (b)(1) and (b)(2) alter the burden of proof? | Psota urges lighter burden based on Mamot/Edwards to merge factors. | Estate advocates strict, dual-burden requirement. | Burden requires satisfaction of both (b)(1) and (b)(2). |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of Pluhacek, 296 Neb. 528 (2017) (informing on § 30-2316(b) proof concepts relative to premarital agreements)
- Mamot v. Mamot, 283 Neb. 659 (2012) (premarital-agreement unenforceability burden—two alternatives)
- Edwards v. Edwards, 16 Neb. App. 297 (2008) (five-factor analysis used for premarital agreements (contextual guidance))
- Warriner v. State, 267 Neb. 424 (2004) (statutory interpretation guidance for voluntariness concepts)
- In re Conservatorship of Abbott, 295 Neb. 510 (2017) (citation supporting substantive analysis in related proceedings)