In re Estate of Psota, 297 Neb. 570

Sharlene Psota sought to be treated as an omitted spouse under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2320 after Eldon Psota died without providing for her in his will.
The copersonal representatives resisted, asserting Sharlene waived rights via a prenuptial agreement signed before marriage.
Eldon and Sharlene married in 2011; a prenup stated they disclaimed any inheritance or interest in the other’s property and included disclosure attestations.
Eldon died in 2013; the estate’s inventory totaled about $10 million, largely real property; Eldon’s will left nothing to Sharlene.
The probate court found the prenuptial agreement to be a valid waiver under § 30-2316 and denied the omitted-spouse application.
Sharlene appealed, arguing the waiver was unenforceable; the issue centralizes whether § 30-2316(b)(1) and (b)(2) require proof of both elements.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 30-2316(b)(1) and (b)(2) require proof of both elements to make a waiver unenforceable.	Psota urged an 'or' approach as in § 42-1006(1).	Estate argued the plain statute requires both elements to be proven.	Burden requires proof of both; no 'or' implied by § 30-2316(b).
Whether Sharlene proved lack of voluntariness under § 30-2316(b)(1).	Sharlene contends Edwards/Mamot factors apply to voluntariness.	Court should not import Edwards/Mamot; focus on statutory text.	Sharlene did not prove lack of voluntariness; she voluntarily signed.
Whether the waiver was unconscionable under § 30-2316(b)(2).	If voluntariness failed, unconscionability could negate the waiver.	Independent assessment of unconscionability required only if (b)(1) proved.	Not reached because (b)(1) not proven.
Effect of the statutory structure on the burden of proof for premarital waivers.	Laud additional factors should apply to determine voluntariness.	Legislature’s structure implies independent, dual-proof burden is required.	Plain-language interpretation: burden on survivor to prove both (b)(1) and (b)(2).
Whether the contract’s disclosure and asset-identification omissions affect enforceability.	Disclosures were incomplete; could support unconscionability.	Court focuses on statutory burden; not enough to negate voluntariness.	Not decisive; the dispositive issue is voluntariness under § 30-2316(b)(1).

Mamot v. Mamot, 283 Neb. 659 (2012) (premarital waiver burden—proof of voluntary execution or unconscionability)
Edwards v. Edwards, 16 Neb. App. 297 (2008) (five-factor consideration of premarital agreement execution)
In re Estate of Pluhacek, 296 Neb. 528 (2017) (context for unconscionability and disclosure standards)
In re Conservatorship of Abbott, 295 Neb. 510 (2017) (utility of established probate standards in related contexts)