In re Estate of Psota
297 Neb. 570
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Sharlene and Eldon Psota married in September 2011; each had previous marriages and children from prior relationships.
- Six days before the wedding they signed a prenuptial agreement (drafted and reviewed with Eldon’s chosen attorney) in which each waived inheritance and elective-share rights and represented full disclosure of assets; Exhibits listing real property (no valuations) were attached, but no tax returns or personal property lists were attached.
- Eldon died in August 2013; his will (executed years earlier) left nothing to Sharlene; estate inventory reflected about $10 million, mostly real property.
- In November 2015 Sharlene filed an application to be treated as an omitted spouse under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2320; the estate defended based on the prenuptial waiver under § 30-2316.
- The county court found the prenuptial agreement enforceable and denied Sharlene’s omitted-spouse claim; Sharlene appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sharlene) | Defendant's Argument (Estate) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 30-2316(b) requires proving one or both subsections to render a waiver unenforceable | § 30-2316(b) should be read like § 42-1006 (use of “or”) so proving either subsection suffices | The statute’s plain text omits “or”; both subsections (b)(1) and (b)(2) must be satisfied | Court held both (b)(1) and (b)(2) must be proved; refused to read “or” into § 30-2316(b) |
| Whether Sharlene executed the waiver voluntarily under § 30-2316(b)(1) | Argues voluntariness should consider broader factors (timing, counsel, disclosures, bargaining power) and that execution was not voluntary in effect | She signed voluntarily; the record shows she attended attorney meetings, requested edits, and signed knowingly | Court found she did execute the waiver voluntarily; Sharlene did not contest the county court’s voluntariness finding on appeal |
| Whether the waiver was unenforceable for lack of adequate disclosure / unconscionability under § 30-2316(b)(2) | Points to absence of valuations, no personal property list, and no tax returns as inadequate disclosure making the waiver unconscionable | Argues disclosures and parties’ acknowledgments satisfied statutory requirements; waiver is enforceable | Court did not reach § 30-2316(b)(2) because Sharlene failed to prove (b)(1); appeal resolved on voluntariness alone |
| Whether the Edwards/Mamot voluntariness test applies to § 30-2316 disputes | Sharlene urges applying Edwards/Mamot multifactor test used under § 42-1006 | Estate contends § 30-2316 requires separate statutory analysis and plain text governs | Court declined to import Edwards/Mamot wholesale into § 30-2316 analysis and declined to apply its factors to override the statute’s text |
Key Cases Cited
- Mamot v. Mamot, 283 Neb. 659, 813 N.W.2d 440 (discussing burden under § 42-1006 and voluntariness standard)
- In re Estate of Pluhacek, 296 Neb. 528, 894 N.W.2d 325 (probate review principles cited)
- Edwards v. Edwards, 16 Neb. App. 297, 744 N.W.2d 243 (Court of Appeals decision applying Edwards/Mamot factors)
- In re Conservatorship of Abbott, 295 Neb. 510, 890 N.W.2d 469 (noting appellate restraint to avoid unnecessary analysis)
- Alisha C. v. Jeremy C., 283 Neb. 340, 808 N.W.2d 875 (statutory construction principles regarding legislative intent)