Higgins v. Currier
307 Neb. 748
| Neb. | 2020Background
- Higgins and Currier married May 2016; Currier moved out July 2017 and parties separated March 2018; no children together.
- Higgins owned multiple TD Ameritrade accounts, including a 401(k) and an account ending in 0510 that increased from $218,182.02 (May 2016) to $359,128.29 (Mar 2018).
- District court found most investment/retirement accounts premarital, awarded Higgins the accounts except ordered $10,500 (half of $21,000) from a 401(k) transferred to Currier.
- Currier appealed, arguing the 0510 account growth during marriage was marital under the active-appreciation rule; Court of Appeals affirmed the district court.
- Nebraska Supreme Court granted review, concluded the Court of Appeals misapplied the active-appreciation rule, held Higgins bore the burden to prove passive appreciation and failed to do so, and reversed in part and remanded for clarification and equitable division.
Issues
| Issue | Currier's Argument | Higgins' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the increase in value of the 0510 account during the marriage is marital property under the active-appreciation rule | The increase is marital because Higgins (owning spouse) did not prove the growth was passive/nonmarital | The increase reflected market fluctuations/passive appreciation and therefore was nonmarital | Supreme Court: owning spouse (Higgins) had burden to prove passive appreciation; he did not, so the increase should be treated as marital property |
| Proper allocation of burden under the active-appreciation rule | Burden belongs to the owning spouse to show growth is nonmarital | Court of Appeals shifted burden to Currier (contrary to precedent) | Supreme Court reaffirmed precedent: burden rests on owning spouse to prove growth is nonmarital; Court of Appeals misapplied the rule |
| Remedy / division of the identified marital portion of the 0510 account | Currier sought half of the account increase | Higgins noted district court already treated $21,000 as marital contributions and warned against double-counting | Court remanded: district court must clarify whether the $21,000 marital contributions were to the 0510 account; if so, treat an additional $119,946.27 as marital; if not, treat $140,946.27 as marital; district court to equitably divide |
| Whether mortgage payments commingled Council Bluffs house equity into marital estate | Currier argued mortgage payments during marriage inextricably commingled equity | Higgins argued house/equity remained nonmarital and traceable to premarital funds | Court found no error in district court’s disposition and declined further comment |
Key Cases Cited
- White v. White, 304 Neb. 945 (2020) (applies active-appreciation rule; owning spouse must prove growth is nonmarital)
- Stephens v. Stephens, 297 Neb. 188 (2017) (defines active vs. passive appreciation and places burden on owning spouse)
- Burgardt v. Burgardt, 304 Neb. 356 (2019) (allocates burden of proof to party claiming property is nonmarital)