Opinion ID: 1765162
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Legislature Has Chosen Public Policy

Text: Finally, Gail contends that excluding premarital trusts from the augmented estate would have a devastating effect on the elective share statutes. She argues that by transferring their property to a revocable trust before marrying, individuals can simply avoid the statutes meant to protect surviving spouses without the disclosure and consent that would be required for a prenuptial agreement. As we know, however, it is the Legislature's function through the enactment of statutes to declare what is the law and public policy of this state. [27] And the Legislature has declared its public policy choice by rejecting the revised article II of the UPC. In 1990, article II of the UPC was significantly revised, including the elective share provisions. [28] Under the revised UPC article II, the augmented estate includes the value of the decedent's nonprobate transfer to others through a revocable trust, whether the trust was created before or during the marriage. [29] The Legislature, by adopting the original UPC and declining to adopt the revised article II of the UPC, [30] has made a clear policy choice in § 30-2314. It explicitly stated that policy choice in the statutory comments to Nebraska's original § 30 2314, which comments are largely identical to the UPC comments in the original § 2 202. Those comments provide that the exclusion of premarital trusts from the augmented estate was intended to permit a person to provide for children by a prior marriage, as by a revocable living trust, without concern that such provisions will be upset by later marriage. [31]