Eis v. Eis
310 Neb. 243
| Neb. | 2021Background
- Donald and Linda Eis were married for 33 years and separated in March 2018; no children of the marriage.
- Donald owned Tract 1 (≈120 acres) before marriage; during the marriage the parties consolidated mortgages and used a joint "farm account" for farm receipts and expenses.
- The parties acquired Tract 2 (≈74 acres) during the marriage; both tracts were treated as at issue in the dissolution.
- Trial court classified both Tract 1 and farm-account funds as marital (finding commingling) and awarded Tract 1 to Donald, Tract 2 to Linda, plus a $165,062.50 equalization payment to Linda.
- Linda moved to alter the decree to account for grain in storage at trial (2019 crop); the court found 2019 grain marital in part and increased Linda’s equalization by $11,400 (total $176,462.50). Donald’s new-trial motion was denied; he appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Linda) | Defendant's Argument (Donald) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Classification of Tract 1 as marital property | Tract 1 was marital: joint loans, mortgage payments from marital accounts, commingled farm receipts, and Linda's renovation increased value of the tract | Tract 1 was nonmarital (premarital). Linda’s $60k renovation was traceable to the house and should be carved out; farm account not traceable | Affirmed. Court found commingling and Donald failed to trace separate contributions; Tract 1 included in marital estate |
| 2. Division / equalization payment | The division (Tract 2 to Linda + equalization) is equitable given classification | Donald argued he could deed his interest in Tract 2 to Linda in lieu of equalization only if Tract 1 were nonmarital | Affirmed. Because Tract 1 was marital, Donald’s alternative depended on a premise rejected by the court; equalization upheld |
| 3. Entitlement to 2019 grain proceeds | 2019 grain was generated from marital land and is partly marital property; Linda entitled to her share | Donald argued grain harvested/stored post-separation should not be Linda’s because she ceased contributing after separation | Affirmed. Court allowed a flexible split (60% to Donald for post‑separation labor; 40% to marital estate) and awarded Linda $11,400 for her share |
| 4. Valuation date for 2019 grain | Use of a valuation date tied to other assets (date of separation) would be consistent | Donald argued valuation should be as of separation; grain did not exist then so trial valuation was inappropriate | Affirmed. Court did not abuse discretion by valuing the 2019 grain at trial (grain did not exist at separation and Donald gave no earlier valuation) |
Key Cases Cited
- Tierney v. Tierney, 309 Neb. 310, 959 N.W.2d 556 (2021) (articulates standard of review for dissolution matters)
- Brozek v. Brozek, 292 Neb. 681, 874 N.W.2d 17 (2016) (separate property becomes marital when inextricably commingled; burden to prove nonmarital)
- Osantowski v. Osantowski, 298 Neb. 339, 904 N.W.2d 251 (2017) (distinguishes crops as income vs tangible property and treats stored/ growing crops flexibly under equities)
- Kalkowski v. Kalkowski, 258 Neb. 1035, 607 N.W.2d 517 (2000) (analysis of crops, income, and marital property treatment)
- Rohde v. Rohde, 303 Neb. 85, 927 N.W.2d 37 (2019) (trial court may use different valuation dates for different assets when equitable and rationally related)
- Davidson v. Davidson, 254 Neb. 656, 578 N.W.2d 848 (1998) (income earned during marriage can be marital asset)