In re Estate of Psota
297 Neb. 570
Neb.2017Background
- Sharlene and Eldon Psota married in September 2011; about a week before the wedding Eldon proposed a prenuptial agreement and retained an attorney; Sharlene reviewed, requested revisions, and signed the final agreement the day before the wedding.
- The prenup recited mutual full disclosure, attached Exhibits A and B listing each party’s real property (without valuations), and contained broad waivers including elective share, homestead, exempt and family allowances, and other testamentary rights.
- Eldon died in August 2013; his will (executed years before the marriage) left nothing to Sharlene; the estate inventory listed roughly $10 million, mostly real property.
- Sharlene filed an application under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2320 seeking treatment as an omitted spouse; the estate argued she waived those rights in the prenuptial agreement pursuant to § 30-2316.
- The county probate court found the prenup valid under § 30-2316 and denied Sharlene’s omitted-spouse claim; Sharlene appealed and the Nebraska Supreme Court retained the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sharlene) | Defendant's Argument (Estate) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 30-2316(b) requires proving both voluntariness and unconscionability/disclosure elements or only one | § 30-2316 should be read like § 42-1006 (which uses "or"), so she need only prove either she did not sign voluntarily or the agreement was unconscionable and disclosure was inadequate | The statute omits the connector "or" between subsections (1) and (2), so both subsections must be satisfied to render a waiver unenforceable | Court held that § 30-2316(b) requires satisfying both (b)(1) and (b)(2); the Legislature’s differing wording is dispositive |
| Whether Sharlene executed the waiver involuntarily under § 30-2316(b)(1) | Argues voluntariness should include broader factors (timing, counsel, inequality, disclosure, understanding) akin to Edwards/Mamot test | Evidence showed Sharlene went to attorney’s office, reviewed revisions, and signed voluntarily; she conceded she signed voluntarily | Court found she did not meet burden to prove non-voluntariness; she conceded she signed voluntarily and provided no record showing the Edwards/Mamot factors would change the outcome |
| Whether court should apply Edwards / Mamot multi-factor test to § 30-2316(b)(1) | Proposes importing the five-factor test used under § 42-1006 and Edwards/Mamot to assess voluntariness | The statutory scheme for omitted-spouse waivers differs; combining factors would conflate distinct statutory elements | Court declined to import the Edwards/Mamot analysis into § 30-2316 and refused to read "or" into the statute |
| Whether appellate court must reach unconscionability/disclosure under § 30-2316(b)(2) once voluntariness not proved | Contends unconscionability/disclosure should be addressed if voluntariness questioned | Estate argued voluntariness was dispositive because § 30-2316 requires both subsections; if voluntariness not proved, no further analysis needed | Because Sharlene failed to prove she did not execute the waiver voluntarily, the court did not reach (b)(2) and affirmed the probate court’s ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Mamot v. Mamot, 283 Neb. 659 (2012) (interpreting § 42-1006 and applying burden when statute contains "or")
- In re Estate of Pluhacek, 296 Neb. 528 (2017) (probate review principles cited)
- Edwards v. Edwards, 16 Neb. App. 297 (2008) (appellate use of multi-factor test for voluntariness under premarital-agreement statute)
- In re Marriage of Bonds, 24 Cal.4th 1 (2000) (California case articulating five-factor test considered in Edwards/Mamot)