Doerr v. Doerr, 306 Neb. 350

Tammy and Brian married in April 2012; Tammy filed for divorce in September 2016 and the decree issued February 19, 2019.
The parties purchased a Howard Street home in April 2012 for $262,000; a real estate professional valued it at $350,000 at trial.
The district court found downpayment and other funds for the Howard Street home were commingled and treated the home as marital property; it awarded the house to Brian but assigned Tammy $165,000 in equity (reduced $10,000 for Brian’s larger downpayment).
A Union Bank money market account contained funds transferred by Tammy at separation; the court found $108,600 marital and split it equally ($54,300 each).
Tammy had a U.S. Bank checking account (~$12,831.67) in her name which the court awarded to her; the court allocated debts to the party in whose name they appeared and ordered Brian to pay an equalization payment of $110,700 to Tammy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Tammy)	Defendant's Argument (Brian)	Held
Classification and valuation of Howard St. home	Home is marital; Tammy contributed to downpayment and remodeling	Home purchased and paid from proceeds of Brian's pre-marriage Fontanelle sale; therefore separate	Trial court credited Tammy; held home was marital, $350,000 value, Tammy entitled to roughly half equity; no abuse of discretion
Division of Union Bank money market funds ($108,600)	Funds were marital; Tammy entitled to her transferred share	Funds traceable to proceeds of Brian's Fontanelle sale and thus separate	Trial court found Brian failed to trace funds as separate; $108,600 treated marital and split $54,300 each
U.S. Bank account (~$12,831.67)	Account in Tammy’s name awarded to Tammy	Brian sought half because Tammy did not prove separate origin	Court awarded accounts to the named owner; no error in giving Tammy her account
Allocation of specific marital debts (~$16,207.76 total)	Court should allocate debts proportionally	Court ordered each party pay debts in their name and post-filing debts	Court upheld its approach; decline to parse small purchases across marriage; no reversible error
Equalization payment ($110,700)	Supported by court’s net-marital calculations	Argued division and debts made payment incorrect	Payment affirmed as consistent with court’s property division

White v. White, 304 Neb. 945 (2020) (describing commingling, tracing, and classification of separate versus marital property)
Burgardt v. Burgardt, 304 Neb. 356 (2019) (party testimony may suffice but credibility and documentary weight are for the trial court)
Osantowski v. Osantowski, 298 Neb. 339 (2017) (standards for tracing separate property and effects of commingling)