34 Neb. App. 309
Neb. Ct. App.2026Background
- Daniel and DeeAnn Bennett married in 2003; Daniel filed for dissolution in August 2023, and trial occurred in January 2025. 1
- The parties’ main property dispute concerned Daniel’s $150,000 Union Pacific settlement, most of which was deposited into a joint account and later transferred among several accounts. 2
- The district court treated the settlement funds as marital, valued Daniel’s FNBO account at trial, and excluded Daniel’s 2023 tax debt from the marital estate. 3
- On alimony, Daniel had higher historical earnings but was temporarily off work for medical reasons, while DeeAnn had lower income and limited earning prospects. 4
- The district court awarded DeeAnn $1,000 per month in alimony for 90 months. 5
- After posttrial motions, both parties appealed aspects of the decree. 6
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Daniel’s Union Pacific settlement marital or partly nonmarital? 7 | DeeAnn said the settlement was marital because allocation was unclear. | Daniel said part compensated pain and suffering and was nonmarital. | A portion was nonmarital; the district court erred in classifying all of it marital. 8 |
| Was the FNBO account’s remaining balance traceable as nonmarital? 9 | DeeAnn said the account should be valued from the August 2023 balance. | Daniel said remaining settlement funds stayed nonmarital. | No; commingling defeated tracing, so the FNBO account was marital. 10 |
| What valuation date applied to the FNBO account? 11 | DeeAnn sought an August 2023 valuation. | Daniel supported trial-date valuation after commingling and debt payments. | Trial-date valuation was reasonable and not an abuse of discretion. 12 |
| Was Daniel’s 2023 tax debt marital? 13 | Daniel said the debt arose during the marriage and should be included. | DeeAnn said it was postseparation and solely Daniel’s responsibility. | Yes; the tax debt was marital, but only seven-twelfths was allocated to Daniel. 14 |
| Was the alimony award unreasonable in amount or duration? 15 | DeeAnn sought more alimony for longer. | Daniel argued DeeAnn failed to prove need and duration was excessive. | No; the alimony award was reasonable and affirmed. 16 |
Key Cases Cited
- Backhaus v. Backhaus, 318 Neb. 891 (Neb. 2025) (de novo review of property division and alimony; abuse-of-discretion standard 17)
- Radmanesh v. Radmanesh, 315 Neb. 393 (Neb. 2023) (valuation date must be rationally related to the property divided 18)
- Marshall v. Marshall, 298 Neb. 1 (Neb. 2017) (personal injury settlements: economic damages marital, pain-and-suffering damages nonmarital 19)
- Parde v. Parde, 258 Neb. 101 (Neb. 1999) (railroad injury settlement allocation; remaining funds can be nonmarital 20)
- White v. White, 320 Neb. 256 (Neb. 2025) (nonmarital property becomes marital when commingled 21)
- Meints v. Meints, 258 Neb. 1017 (Neb. 2000) (separate tax filing does not itself make tax debt nonmarital 22)
- Kauk v. Kauk, 310 Neb. 329 (Neb. 2021) (party asserting debt is nonmarital bears the burden of proof 23)
- Scott v. Scott, 319 Neb. 877 (Neb. 2025) (marital division aims for fairness; alimony factors include income and earning capacity 24)
- Wiedel v. Wiedel, 300 Neb. 13 (Neb. 2018) (ability to pay temporary alimony supports ability to pay permanent alimony 25)
- Seemann v. Seemann, 316 Neb. 671 (Neb. 2024) (alimony should support an ex-spouse until self-support is achievable 26)
- Gress v. Gress, 274 Neb. 686 (Neb. 2007) (alimony duration must be reasonable in light of its support purpose 27)