- 528 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

296 Nebraska Reports

IN RE ESTATE OF PLUHACEK

Cite as 296 Neb. 528

In re Estate of Dorothy Pluhacek, also

known as Mary Pluhacek, also known as

Sr. M. Dorothy de N.D., deceased.

Margaret Hickey, appellant, v. Estate of

Dorothy Pluhacek, also known as

Mary Pluhacek, also known as

Sr. M. Dorothy de N.D., 

deceased, appellee.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed April 27, 2017. No. S-16-654.

1. Decedents’ Estates: Appeal and Error. An appellate court reviews 

probate cases for error appearing on the record made in the county court.

2. Decedents’ Estates: Judgments: Appeal and Error. When reviewing 

questions of law in a probate matter, an appellate court reaches a conclusion independent of the determination reached by the court below.

3. Decedents’ Estates: Wills: Intent: Proof. A document purporting to 

be a will, which is otherwise sufficient, will satisfy the “writing” 

requirement of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2327 (Reissue 2016), whether it 

is completely handwritten; partly written in ink and partly in pencil; 

partly typewritten and partly printed; partly printed, partly typewritten, 

and partly written; or on a printed form, as well as other combinations 

of these forms and comparable permanent techniques of writing which 

substantively evidence testamentary intent.

Appeal from the County Court for Douglas County: Thomas

K. Harmon, Judge. Reversed and remanded for further 

proceedings.

Shane J. Placek, of Sidner Law, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/

07/07/2017 12:11 AM CDT
- 529 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

296 Nebraska Reports

IN RE ESTATE OF PLUHACEK

Cite as 296 Neb. 528

Heavican, C.J., Wright, Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, 

Kelch, and Funke, JJ.

Miller-Lerman, J.

NATURE OF CASE

Margaret Hickey, the current Provincial Superioress of the 

Omaha province of the Notre Dame Sisters, appeals the decision of the Douglas County Court which denied formal probate of a document that Hickey purported to be the valid 

will of Dorothy Pluhacek, also known as Mary Pluhacek, 

also known as Sr. M. Dorothy de N.D. The court concluded 

that the document was not a valid will under Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§ 30-2327 (Reissue 2016) because portions of the document 

were handwritten and further concluded that the document 

was not admissible as a holographic will under Neb. Rev. 

Stat. § 30-2328 (Reissue 2016). Because we conclude that the 

document is a properly executed will under § 30-2327, we 

reverse the order of the county court and remand the cause for 

formal probate.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Pluhacek died on July 1, 2015, at 100 years of age. Thereafter, 

Hickey filed an application for informal probate of the will 

and informal appointment of a personal representative in the 

Douglas County Court. Hickey sought appointment as personal 

representative on the basis that she was the current Provincial 

Superioress of the Omaha province of the Notre Dame Sisters, 

and the document she submitted for probate named the holder 

of that title as executor.

The document Hickey purported to be Pluhacek’s will 

accompanied the application. The document contained certain 

preprinted terms, typewritten material, and blanks that were 

completed in handwriting. The content of the document is set 

forth below. The portions that were handwritten in the document are indicated by italics below. The portion that is underlined below was not underlined in the document but was in a 
- 530 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

296 Nebraska Reports

IN RE ESTATE OF PLUHACEK

Cite as 296 Neb. 528

different typeset than the preprinted portions of the document. 

The document stated as follows:

LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT

———————

IN THE NAME OF GOD. AMEN.

I, Mary T. Pluhacek otherwise known as Sr. M. Dorothy 

de N.D., being of legal age, of sound mind and memory, 

do hereby make, publish, and declare this to be my last 

will and testament.

FIRST: I give, devise, and bequeath to School Sisters 

de N.D., Inc. at Omaha, Nebraska all property, real, personal, and mixed, which I now possess or which I may 

hereafter acquire.

This Will and Testament may not be changed without 

the permission of the Superior General.

SECOND: I hereby nominate and appoint Provincial 

Superioress of the School Sisters de N.D., Inc. as the 

executor of this will, without bond or inventory.

The document was signed and witnessed as follows:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand 

this 22nd day of July 1936.

(Signature) Mary T. Pluhacek

Signed, published, and declared by the above named 

Mary T. Pluhacek otherwise known as Sr. M. Dorothy de 

N.D., as her last will and testament, in the presence of us, 

who in her presence and at her request, and in the presence of each other, have hereunto subscribed our names 

as witnesses the day and year above written.

Immediately below this quoted text were two signatures 

denominated as witnesses. The signatures indicated that both 

witnesses were also Notre Dame Sisters.

The county court sua sponte entered an order denying informal probate of the document. The court noted, inter alia, that 

“[t]he signature of [Pluhacek] was affixed to the document 

which was subscribed by the testator and published as her 

Last Will and Testament in the presence of two (2) attesting 
- 531 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

296 Nebraska Reports

IN RE ESTATE OF PLUHACEK

Cite as 296 Neb. 528

witnesses.” The court then quoted § 30-2327, which is titled 

“Execution” and provides:

Except as provided for holographic wills, writings 

within section 30-2338, and wills within section 30-2331, 

every will is required to be in writing signed by the testator or in the testator’s name by some other individual 

in the testator’s presence and by his direction, and is 

required to be signed by at least two individuals each 

of whom witnessed either the signing or the testator’s 

acknowledgment of the signature or of the will.

The court also quoted § 30-2328, which is titled “Holographic 

will” and provides:

An instrument which purports to be testamentary in 

nature but does not comply with section 30-2327 is 

valid as a holographic will, whether or not witnessed, 

if the signature, the material provisions, and an indication of the date of signing are in the handwriting of 

the testator and, in the absence of such indication of 

date, if such instrument is the only such instrument or 

contains no inconsistency with any like instrument or 

if such date is determinable from the contents of such 

instrument, from extrinsic circumstances, or from any 

other evidence.

The county court determined that “[t]he document that 

[Pluhacek] signed does not qualify as a Will because the material provisions are in the handwriting of the testator.” Pursuing 

this reasoning, the court then stated that as a prerequisite to 

probate, it would be necessary to determine whether the document was admissible as a holographic will. The court further 

stated that such determination could not be made in an informal proceeding and instead that a formal proceeding would 

be required to determine whether Pluhacek had left a valid 

holographic will. Based on the foregoing, the court denied 

admission of the document for informal probate.

Hickey filed a notice of appeal of the county court’s order 

denying informal probate. In case No. A-16-112, in a minute 
- 532 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

296 Nebraska Reports

IN RE ESTATE OF PLUHACEK

Cite as 296 Neb. 528

entry dated March 1, 2016, the Nebraska Court of Appeals 

determined that the county court’s order denying informal probate was not a final, appealable order and dismissed the appeal 

for lack of jurisdiction.

Hickey then filed an amended petition for formal probate, 

determination of heirs, and appointment of personal representative in the county court. Hickey again offered the document as Pluhacek’s validly executed will and nominated herself to be personal representative pursuant to the terms of the 

purported will.

After a trial, the county court entered an order on June 7, 

2016, in which it denied formal probate of the document. The 

court repeated its earlier reasoning to the effect that because 

the material provisions were handwritten, the document was 

not “in writing” for purposes of § 30-2327. Because the 

court viewed the document as inadmissible as a will under 

§ 30-2327, the court needed to determine whether the document was admissible as a holographic will. The court noted 

there was “no witness opinion provided that verifies that the 

holographic instrument is in [Pluhacek’s] handwriting, i.e., no 

evidence was adduced by any witness who was familiar with 

[Pluhacek’s] handwriting.” The court stated that its conclusion 

that because Hickey had not established that the document was 

in Pluhacek’s handwriting, the document was not admissible 

as a holographic will.

In its order, the county court continued that, assuming 

arguendo that the handwriting could be established to be that 

of Pluhacek, the court would consider other issues regarding 

the validity of the document. In that respect, the court noted 

that the document “obviously was an undated pre-printed 

form . . . with handwritten insertions.” The court therefore 

described the document as “not a true holographic will but is 

rather a ‘hybrid’ holographic will.” The court cited precedent 

of this court to the effect that in order for a holographic will 

to be valid, the material provisions must be in the handwriting of the decedent and that such handwritten portions 
- 533 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

296 Nebraska Reports

IN RE ESTATE OF PLUHACEK

Cite as 296 Neb. 528

must clearly express testamentary intent without reference 

to preprinted portions of a form. Although the county court 

was not explicit, its discussion of this issue and its ultimate 

conclusions indicate that the court believed the document to 

be a holographic will but that the handwritten portions of the 

document standing alone were not sufficient to express testamentary intent. We believe the county court was mistakenly 

echoing In re Estate of Foxley, 254 Neb. 204, 575 N.W.2d 150 

(1998), which examined a handwritten codicil.

The county court also considered an argument that the 

document was a validly executed will under Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§ 30-2331 (Reissue 2016), which provides:

A written will is valid if executed in compliance with 

section 30-2327 or 30-2328 or if its execution complies 

with the law at the time of execution of the place where 

the will is executed or of the place where at the time of 

execution or at the time of death the testator is domiciled, 

has a place of abode or is a national.

The court noted that the face of the document indicated that it 

was signed in 1936. The court stated that its review of statutes 

and law indicated that holographic wills were not recognized 

in 1936 and that “[i]n fact, holographic wills were not recognized as a matter of law until Nebraska adopted the Uniform 

Probate Code . . . in 1974.” The court concluded that because 

the document was a holographic will which form was not recognized in 1936, any argument based on § 30-2331 would be 

without merit.

Based on its analysis summarized above, the court denied 

formal probate of the document and found that Pluhacek had 

died intestate. Hickey appeals.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

Hickey claims, restated, that the document was a properly executed will under § 30-2327 and that the county court 

erred when it examined and determined that the document 

was a holographic will which failed to meet the terms of the 
- 534 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

296 Nebraska Reports

IN RE ESTATE OF PLUHACEK

Cite as 296 Neb. 528

holographic will statute, § 30-2328, and further erred when it 

denied formal probate.

STANDARDS OF REVIEW

[1,2] An appellate court reviews probate cases for error 

appearing on the record made in the county court. In re Estate 

of Balvin, 295 Neb. 346, 888 N.W.2d 499 (2016). When 

reviewing questions of law in a probate matter, an appellate 

court reaches a conclusion independent of the determination 

reached by the court below. Id.

ANALYSIS

The county court concluded that Pluhacek’s will, dated 

July 22, 1936, was not valid and denied Hickey’s petition 

for formal probate. Hickey claims primarily that the county 

court erred when it did not conclude that the document was 

a properly executed will under § 30-2327 and therefore 

erroneously denied formal probate. We agree with Hickey’s 

arguments and reverse the county court’s order which denied 

formal probate.

We have quoted § 30-2327, entitled “Execution,” above. 

When the requirements of § 30-2327 are met, the will is validly executed. The requirements of § 30-2327 are satisfied if a 

will is (1) in writing, (2) signed by the testator, and (3) signed 

by at least two individuals, each of whom witnessed either the 

signing or the testator’s acknowledgment of the signing of the 

will. See In re Estate of Flider, 213 Neb. 153, 328 N.W.2d 

197 (1982). See, also, Cummings v. Curtiss, 219 Neb. 106, 361 

N.W.2d 508 (1985) (stating two witnesses are required under 

§ 30-2327). Pluhacek’s will, as tendered by Hickey, meets 

these requirements.

The holographic will statute, § 30-2328, is an exception to 

the generally controlling “execution” statute, § 30-2327. But 

where the will meets the requirements of § 30-2327, further 

examination of validity under other theories is not necessary. In this case, there is no meaningful dispute in the record 
- 535 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

296 Nebraska Reports

IN RE ESTATE OF PLUHACEK

Cite as 296 Neb. 528

that Pluhacek’s will was signed by her and witnessed by two 

other individuals. And contrary to the county court’s view of 

§ 30-2327, under our independent review of § 30-2327, we 

conclude as a matter of law that the will, albeit partly printed, 

partly typed, and partly handwritten, was “in writing” for purposes of § 30-2327. See In re Estate of Balvin, supra (reciting 

our standard of review).

Reading the county court’s order as a whole, we believe the 

county court’s fundamental misunderstanding was its belief 

that, due to substantial portions of the will being in handwriting, the document was not “in writing” for statutory purposes 

of § 30-2327. This misunderstanding led to the county court’s 

unnecessary examination of the document as a possible holographic will.

For purposes of complying with a statutory requirement 

such as contained in § 30-2327 that a will be “in writing,” it 

is generally agreed that a document partly typed or printed 

and completed in handwriting meets the writing requirement. 

See 95 C.J.S. Wills § 204 (2011). The cases have long been to 

this effect. E.g., Stuck v. Howard, 213 Ala. 184, 104 So. 500 

(1925), overruled in part, Reynolds v. Massey, 219 Ala. 265, 

122 So. 29 (1929). Interpreting a statutory provision similar to 

§ 30-2327, another court stated that the statutory word “written,” “is broad enough to include a typewritten will with a 

portion . . . in longhand.” Succession of Bellanca v. Schiro, 517 

So. 2d 1235 (La. App. 1987).

[3] We agree with the reasoning of the foregoing and other 

authorities and conclude that a document purporting to be a 

will, which is otherwise sufficient, will satisfy the “in writing” 

requirement of § 30-2327, whether it is completely handwritten; “partly written in ink and partly in pencil[;] partly typewritten and partly printed[;] partly printed, [partly typewritten,] and partly written[;] or on a printed form,” see 95 C.J.S., 

supra, § 204 at 201, as well as other combinations of these 

forms and comparable permanent techniques of writing which 

substantively evidence testamentary intent.
- 536 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

296 Nebraska Reports

IN RE ESTATE OF PLUHACEK

Cite as 296 Neb. 528

In this case, the document tendered by Hickey was “in writing,” signed by Pluhacek and witnessed by two individuals; 

thus, the will was properly executed and satisfied § 30-2327. 

On this record, the will was validly executed under § 30-2327, 

and the county court erred when it denied formal probate based 

on its erroneous reasoning.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons explained above, we conclude, as a matter of law, that the will was a validly executed will under 

§ 30-2327. The county court erred when it denied formal 

probate. Accordingly, we reverse, and remand with instructions to the county court to admit the will to formal probate 

and formally grant other appropriate relief in accordance with 

the will.

 Reversed and remanded for

further proceedings.