Eis v. Eis
310 Neb. 243
Neb.2021Background
- Donald and Linda Eis were married for 33 years and separated in March 2018; no children from the marriage.
- Donald owned Tract 1 (≈120 acres) before marriage; it carried mortgages later consolidated into a joint bank loan on which both were liable. The parties also acquired Tract 2 (≈74 acres) during the marriage.
- Linda spent about $60,000 of nonmarital funds renovating the home on Tract 1; farm income from both tracts was deposited into a commingled farm account used to pay farm expenses and mortgages.
- The district court deemed both tracts marital property, awarded Tract 1 to Donald and 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 total value, allocated 60% to Donald (postseparation work) and 40% to the marital estate, and increased Linda’s equalization payment by $11,400. Donald appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Linda's Argument | Donald's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tract 1 is marital property or Donald's nonmarital premarital property (commingling) | Tract 1 was commingled with marital property: joint loan, farm account and mortgage payments; Linda's renovation contributed to tract appreciation. | Tract 1 remained separate; Linda's $60,000 renovation is traceable to the house and should not convert the whole tract to marital property. | Tract 1 is marital property. Donald failed to prove traceability or that appreciated value was separate; commingling found. |
| Whether the marital estate was equitably divided and whether Donald could transfer his share of Tract 2 in lieu of an equalization payment | The court’s equalization payment reflects the relative values of awarded property given Tract 1 was marital. | Donald proposed deeding his half of Tract 2 (value cited) to Linda instead of paying cash. | Court upheld equalization payment; Donald’s proposal depended on Tract 1 being nonmarital, which was rejected. |
| Whether Linda is entitled to part of 2019 grain in storage and whether the trial date (vs. separation date) was the proper valuation date | Grain stored in 2019 derived in part from jointly owned marital land, so Linda is entitled to a share; trial date valuation appropriate because grain did not exist at separation. | Grain harvested/stored postseparation should not be marital or should be valued as of separation; Linda ceased contributing to farm operations after separation. | Court awarded Linda 40% of stored grain value to marital estate (60/40 split for equities), and used trial date valuation because the grain did not exist at separation and Donald offered no contrary valuation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brozek v. Brozek, 292 Neb. 681 (commingling standard: separate property becomes marital when inextricably mixed)
- Osantowski v. Osantowski, 298 Neb. 339 (treatment of crops/harvested grain postseparation and marital income analysis)
- Kalkowski v. Kalkowski, 258 Neb. 1035 (distinguishing crops as income vs. tangible marital property derived from marital land)
- Rohde v. Rohde, 303 Neb. 85 (valuation date need not be single; must be rationally related to each asset; reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Tierney v. Tierney, 309 Neb. 310 (general family law principles cited by the court)