Eis v. Eis, 310 Neb. 243

Donald and Linda Eis married in 1984, separated in March 2018, and divorced by decree in March 2020 after 33 years of marriage.
Donald owned Tract 1 (≈120 acres) before the marriage; the parties acquired Tract 2 (≈74 acres) during the marriage. Mortgages on Tract 1 were consolidated into a joint bank loan and later paid from a commingled "farm account."
Linda spent about $60,000 of nonmarital funds renovating the home and garage on Tract 1. Income from both tracts was deposited into the farm account and the parties borrowed against Tract 1 during the marriage.
The district court classified both tracts and the farm account as marital property, awarded Tract 2 to Linda and Tract 1 to Donald, and ordered Donald to pay Linda $165,062.50 as an equalization payment.
Linda successfully moved to amend the decree to account for 2019 grain in storage valued at $28,500; the court allocated 40% ($11,400) to the marital estate and increased the equalization payment to $176,462.50. Donald’s motion for new trial was denied and he appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Linda)	Defendant's Argument (Donald)	Held
Whether Tract 1 is marital or Donald's nonmarital property	Tract 1 became marital by commingling: joint loan, farm account deposits, and Linda's renovations contributed to appreciation	Tract 1 was premarital; Linda's $60,000 renovation is traceable to the house only and should not convert entire tract	Tract 1 is marital—Donald failed to prove separateness or traceability; commingling and shared obligations support marital classification
Whether the property division/equalization was equitable (Donald’s proposal to deed Tract 2 in lieu of payment)	Equalization payment was proper given overall division	Proposed deed of Tract 2 depended on Tract 1 being nonmarital and thus was improper if Tract 1 is marital	Affirmed equalization payment because Tract 1 was properly found marital; Donald’s alternative depended on a contrary finding
Whether Linda was entitled to part of 2019 grain in storage and appropriate valuation date	Grain is marital (grown on marital land); Linda entitled to share; value measured at trial when grain existed and market evidence was available	Linda not entitled to proceeds after separation; if awarded, valuation should be as of separation like other assets	Court awarded 40% of 2019 grain to marital estate (60/40 split for post‑separation efforts), used trial date valuation for grain; no abuse of discretion

Brozek v. Brozek, 292 Neb. 681, 874 N.W.2d 17 (2016) (separate property becomes marital when inextricably commingled; burden on claimant to prove separateness)
Osantowski v. Osantowski, 298 Neb. 339, 904 N.W.2d 251 (2017) (treatment of crops and stored grain in marital property contexts; distinction between crops as income and crops as tangible marital property)
Kalkowski v. Kalkowski, 258 Neb. 1035, 607 N.W.2d 517 (2000) (analysis of crops, income, and marital property rights)
Rohde v. Rohde, 303 Neb. 85, 927 N.W.2d 37 (2019) (trial courts need not use a single valuation date for all marital assets; valuation date must be rationally related to the asset)
Tierney v. Tierney, 309 Neb. 310, 959 N.W.2d 556 (2021) (precedent on family law procedural and valuation principles)