Eis v. Eis
965 N.W.2d 19
Neb.2021Background
- 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 paid during the marriage from farm-related accounts.
- The district court found Tract 1 and the farm account commingled with marital property and included them in the marital estate.
- The court awarded Tract 2 to Linda, Tract 1 to Donald, and ordered Donald to pay Linda $165,062.50 as an equalization payment.
- Linda moved to amend the decree to account for 2019 grain in storage; the court found $28,500 value for that grain, 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.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tract 1 is marital or Donald's premarital separate property | Linda: Tract 1 was commingled with marital property (farm account, joint loans, Linda’s renovations) and thus marital | Donald: Tract 1 was premarital; Linda’s contributions were traceable to the house only and did not convert entire tract to marital | Court: Affirmed classification of Tract 1 as marital—Donald failed to trace separate contributions or show lack of commingling |
| Whether the division and equalization payment were equitable | Linda: Award and equalization payment reasonably divide the marital estate given values and awards of tracts | Donald: Should transfer his share of Tract 2 to Linda instead of paying equalization (dependent on Tract 1 being nonmarital) | Court: Affirmed equalization payment; Donald’s alternative depended on Tract 1 being nonmarital, which was rejected |
| Whether amendment to award Linda part of 2019 grain and valuation date | Linda: 2019 grain stored at trial derived from marital land and should be included; value may be determined at trial date | Donald: Grain proceeds post-separation not marital; if included, valuation should use separation date | Court: Affirmed amendment—grain was marital (cannot be traced to nonmarital land), equitable 60/40 split (60% to Donald for postseparation effort), and valuation at trial date was appropriate since grain did not exist at separation |
Key Cases Cited
- Brozek v. Brozek, 292 Neb. 681, 874 N.W.2d 17 (2016) (separate property becomes marital if inextricably commingled; burden to prove nonmarital status rests with claiming party)
- Osantowski v. Osantowski, 298 Neb. 339, 904 N.W.2d 251 (2017) (treatment of crops and stored grain depends on marital ownership and equities; distinctions between income and tangible crop property)
- Kalkowski v. Kalkowski, 258 Neb. 1035, 607 N.W.2d 517 (2000) (crops held as income issues when spouse lacks ownership interest in land)
- Rohde v. Rohde, 303 Neb. 85, 927 N.W.2d 37 (2019) (valuation date for marital assets must be rationally related to the property and is reviewed for abuse of discretion; single valuation date not always required)
- Tierney v. Tierney, 309 Neb. 310, 959 N.W.2d 556 (2021) (cited for procedural and property-division principles)
- Davidson v. Davidson, 254 Neb. 656, 578 N.W.2d 848 (1998) (income earned during marriage is marital asset concept relevant to crop/income distinctions)