Eis v. Eis
310 Neb. 243
| Neb. | 2021Background
- Donald and Linda Eis married in 1984, separated in March 2018, and dissolved their marriage by decree in March 2020 after 33 years of marriage.
- Donald owned Tract 1 (≈120 acres) before marrying Linda; the parties later acquired Tract 2 (≈74 acres) during the marriage. Mortgages on Tract 1 were consolidated into a bank loan signed by both spouses and paid during the marriage from shared farm/town accounts.
- Linda spent about $60,000 of nonmarital funds renovating the home and building a garage on Tract 1; both parties also testified that farm revenues were deposited into a commingled farm account.
- The district court found Tract 1 and the farm account were commingled and thus marital property; it awarded Tract 1 to Donald, Tract 2 to Linda, and ordered Donald to pay Linda an equalization payment of $165,062.50.
- Linda moved to amend the decree to account for 2019 grain in storage; the court found $28,500 value for the 2019 stored grain, allocated 60% to Donald (postseparation effort) and 40% to the marital estate, and increased Linda’s equalization payment by $11,400 to $176,462.50.
- Donald appealed assignments arguing (1) Tract 1 was nonmarital, (2) the property division was inequitable, and (3) the court erred in awarding and valuing Linda’s share of the stored grain. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Linda) | Defendant's Argument (Donald) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Classification of Tract 1 as marital property | Tract 1 and farm account were commingled; Linda’s contributions and joint mortgage liability made Tract 1 marital | Tract 1 was Donald’s premarital separate property; Linda’s renovations are traceable to improvements only | Trial court did not abuse discretion: Tract 1 held marital due to commingling and lack of tracing evidence by Donald |
| Equitable division / equalization payment | Awarding Tract 2 to Linda plus equalization is appropriate given overall division | Donald proposed deeding his share of Tract 2 to Linda in lieu of payment (only viable if Tract 1 were nonmarital) | Donald’s proposal depended on Tract 1 being nonmarital; classification stands so division affirmed |
| Entitlement to 2019 grain in storage | 2019 grain was generated from marital land; Linda entitled to share despite separation | Linda should not get grain proceeds after filing for divorce and postseparation farming | Court properly allocated 40% of 2019 stored grain to marital estate (Linda) and 60% to Donald for postseparation effort; no abuse of discretion |
| Valuation date for 2019 grain | Valuation at trial date is appropriate because the grain did not exist at separation and trial evidence established value | Court should have used date of separation to value all marital assets consistently | Court reasonably used trial date for valuation (grain did not exist at separation and Donald offered no harvest-value evidence); no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Brozek v. Brozek, 292 Neb. 681 (2016) (separate property becomes marital by commingling; traceability prevents commingling)
- Tierney v. Tierney, 309 Neb. 310 (2021) (standards governing valuation and property classification in dissolution cases)
- Osantowski v. Osantowski, 298 Neb. 339 (2017) (treatment of stored/harvested crops and distinction between income and property)
- Kalkowski v. Kalkowski, 258 Neb. 1035 (2000) (when crops constitute income versus tangible property rights)
- Rohde v. Rohde, 303 Neb. 85 (2019) (trial courts need not use a single valuation date for all assets; valuation date must be rationally related to asset)
- Chmelka v. Chmelka, 29 Neb. App. 265 (2020) (applications of valuation-date principles in property division)
- Davidson v. Davidson, 254 Neb. 656 (1998) (income earned during marriage is a marital asset)