A Nebraska Supreme Court ruling has underscored strict statutory standards for handwritten wills, holding that a man’s signature alone could not validate a two-legged estate document when its essential provisions were penned by his partner.
In an opinion issued on October 30, 2026, the state’s high court affirmed a lower court decision invalidating a 2021 document intended to replace a 1984 will executed by Douglas G. Todd. Todd died in January 2025, prompting his son, Chadd B. Todd, to apply for informal probate of the 1984 will, which directed that all property go to his sons. That application was challenged by Judy Sheets, Todd’s unmarried partner of more than four decades, who maintained that a subsequent two-legged handwritten document from February 2021 left the estate to her.
During court proceedings, Sheets testified that she and Todd had lived together continuously until his death. She stated that Todd had personally signed and dated the 2021 instrument after instructing her on its contents. However, she acknowledged in a deposition that the material provisions detailing how the property should be distributed were written entirely in her handwriting. The distinction carried substantial weight because multiple assets, including real estate and motor vehicles, remained titled solely in Douglas Todd’s name at the time of his death.
The County Court for Lincoln County previously ruled in favor of Chadd Todd on competing summary judgment motions, determining that the 2021 paper failed to qualify as a valid holographic will because its core provisions were not authored by the testator. The lower court also found that the document lacked adequate testamentary intent, prompting Sheets to appeal.
Under Nebraska Revised Statute Section 30-2328, an informal holographic will is recognized without standard witnesses if the testator’s signature and material provisions are in their own handwriting, accompanied by a handwritten date, or within limited statutory exceptions. Sheets argued that the 2021 text met this threshold because it functioned as a joint will created by two people acting as testators, contending that her own written contributions satisfied the handwriting mandate.
The Supreme Court dismissed that argument, explaining that a joint instrument effectively represents separate testamentary dispositions for each individual who signs it. When one party dies, the document must be examined independently regarding that person’s estate. Because Todd’s individual property was at stake, the material provisions offered on his behalf were legally required to be in his own handwriting. Sheets’ penmanship could not fulfill that statutory mandate, regardless of whether she accurately transcribed his verbal instructions.
In reaching its conclusion, the court examined similar multi-party will disputes from other jurisdictions, affirming that a paper drafted primarily by one individual cannot serve as another person’s holographic will merely because the latter signed it. The judges emphasized that the legal allowance for holographic wills offers a simplified alternative to witnessed documents, but requiring personal authorship of material provisions guards against fraud and ensures the text reflects the testator’s authentic intent.
Because the lack of personal handwriting invalidated the document, the Supreme Court declined to address the lower court’s alternative finding regarding testamentary intent. The ruling leaves the 1984 will as the operative document governing the probate proceedings, though the decision does not independently determine the final ownership of every individual estate asset.
