Higgins v. Currier, 950 N.W.2d 631

Higgins and Currier married May 2016; the parties separated effectively July 2017 (Currier moved back to Washington) and divorced after a short marriage.
Higgins worked at TD Ameritrade and owned several investment/retirement accounts established before marriage, including a TD Ameritrade account ending in 0510 and another brokerage/TD account ending in 3733, plus one or more 401(k) accounts.
Currier submitted account statements showing the 0510 account grew from $218,182.02 (May 2016) to $359,128.29 (March 2018) and asked for equitable division of the growth; Higgins did not present evidence explaining the cause of the increase.
The district court awarded Higgins nearly all investment/retirement funds but found Higgins made $21,000 in 401(k) contributions during the marriage and awarded Currier $10,500 (half) from a 401(k); it treated most appreciation and the Council Bluffs house as nonmarital.
The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed; the Nebraska Supreme Court granted further review focused on whether the increase in the 0510 account should have been treated as marital under the active appreciation rule.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Currier)	Defendant's Argument (Higgins)	Held
Whether the increase in value of the 0510 account during the marriage is marital property	Growth is marital under the active appreciation rule and should be equitably divided	The account statements show market-driven fluctuation; district court correctly awarded account to Higgins	Increase is presumed marital absent proof to the contrary by the owning spouse; Higgins failed to prove passive appreciation, so increase should be treated as marital
Proper allocation of burden under the active appreciation rule	Court of Appeals improperly shifted burden to Currier; White requires burden on owning spouse	Court of Appeals applied the rule correctly based on exhibits	Supreme Court: burden lies with the owning spouse to prove growth is nonmarital; Court of Appeals erred in shifting burden
Remedy: whether appellate court should modify decree or remand for further division	Currier seeks half the increase now	Higgins argues remand/unclarity about effective marriage end (July 2017) defeats immediate award	Court remands: district court must clarify whether the $21,000 marital contributions were to the 0510 account; if so, treat additional $119,946.27 as marital; if not, treat $140,946.27 as marital, and then equitably divide on existing record

White v. White, 304 Neb. 945, 937 N.W.2d 838 (articulates and applies the active appreciation rule; burden on owning spouse to prove growth is nonmarital)
Stephens v. Stephens, 297 Neb. 188, 899 N.W.2d 582 (explains that appreciation of nonmarital assets during marriage is marital unless owning spouse proves otherwise and endorses placing burden on owner)
Burgardt v. Burgardt, 304 Neb. 356, 934 N.W.2d 488 (reiterates that party claiming property is nonmarital bears the burden of proof)