In re Estate of Psota, 297 Neb. 570

Sharlene Psota, age unspecified, applied to be treated as an omitted spouse after Eldon Psota’s death in 2013; Eldon’s will predated the marriage and did not include Sharlene.
Sharlene and Eldon married on Sept. 24, 2011, both previously married with children from prior marriages; a prenuptial agreement was signed a few days before the wedding.
Prenuptial agreement stated both parties disclaimed any interest in the other’s pre-marital property and waived various spousal rights, including elective share and exemptions, with attached schedules listing each party’s property in general terms.
Eldon died in August 2013; the estate valued at approximately $10 million, largely real property; the agreement did not list personal property or include tax returns, and statements disclosed were general, not fully itemized.
County court held the prenuptial agreement was a valid waiver under § 30-2316; Sharlene appealed, and the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the probate court’s denial of her omitted-spouse relief.
Question presented: whether the absence of explicit property valuations and the lack of tax returns in the prenuptial agreement affect the enforceability of the waiver under § 30-2316.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Burden of proof for voluntariness under §30-2316(b)(1).	Sharlene argues Edwards/Mamot factors apply to voluntariness.	Eldon’s estate contends plain language requires proof of both (b)(1) and (b)(2).	Surviving spouse must prove both (b)(1) and (b)(2); court affirms voluntariness not shown.
Unconscionability and disclosure requirements under §30-2316(b)(2).	Waiver could be unenforceable due to lack of fair disclosure and knowledge.	Agreement provided general disclosures and waiver language; no failure shown.	Issue not reached because voluntariness not proven.
Impact of missing 'or' connector between (b)(1) and (b)(2) on evidentiary burden.	Should treat as requiring only one standard or broader proof.	Statutory text requires dual proof; no logical reason to read in 'or'.	Nebraska law requires satisfaction of both subsections (b)(1) and (b)(2).
Whether Edwards/Mamot five-factor test applies to §30-2316 review.	Argues Edwards/Mamot factors should govern voluntariness.	Those factors are for premarital agreements; not applicable here.	Rejected; Edwards/Mamot factors not adopted for §30-2316; focus on statutory text.

In re Estate of Pluhacek, 296 Neb. 528 (2017) (relevance to unconscionability and disclosure under similar statute §42-1006(1))
Mamot v. Mamot, 283 Neb. 659 (2012) (prospective standard for burden of proof in premarital agreements)
Edwards v. Edwards, 16 Neb. App. 297 (2008) (five-factor test, discussion of voluntariness in premarital context)
In re Conservatorship of Abbott, 295 Neb. 510 (2017) (discretionary considerations in probate/waiver contexts)
State v. Warriner, 267 Neb. 424 (2004) (case informing voluntariness/waiver analysis in Nebraska)