Kauk v. Kauk, 310 Neb. 329

Background

Marcia and Randall Kauk married 34 years; Marcia is a retired teacher, Randall a farmer; they separated in 2018 and Marcia filed for dissolution.
The parties stipulated as to most assets; trial addressed three disputed property issues: payments toward a quarter-section owned by Kauk Family L.L.C. (LLC), certain crop-related payments, and allocation of the 7-acre marital homestead.
Marcia introduced unsigned 2013/2015 documents she claimed were a land installment contract showing large payments by Randall toward purchase; Randall and an LLC member testified the documents were unsigned, the purchase was abandoned, and his payments were treated as rent.
The district court found the alleged contracts unenforceable under the statute of frauds and concluded Randall’s payments to the LLC were rental (nonmarital) rather than purchase (marital) payments.
The court adjusted the valuation of 2018 crops by deducting four payments Randall made in spring 2019 (seed, fuel, and a payment labeled for the “Jorgensen” land), treating them as expenses tied to prior operations or rent.
The district court awarded the 7-acre marital homestead (including the house) to Randall; Marcia appealed, arguing misclassification of assets/debts and improper award of the homestead.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether payments Randall made to Kauk Family LLC constituted marital purchase payments under a land installment contract or were rental (nonmarital) payments	Marcia: unsigned installment contract + payments and possession show part performance → payments are marital purchase payments	Randall: contracts unsigned, parties abandoned purchase plan, payments treated as rent → nonmarital	Court: No enforceable contract; Marcia failed to prove part-performance exception; payments were rental/nonmarital; affirmed
Whether four 2019 payments (two seed, one fuel, Jorgensen payment) should reduce 2018 crop valuation or be treated as nonmarital 2019 crop expenses/purchase payments	Marcia: timing shows payments for 2019 crops or purchase of Jorgensen land, so should not reduce 2018 marital crop value	Randall: payments related to producing 2018 crops or rent for Jorgensen ground; crediting them against 2018 crop value was proper	Court: Marcia failed to prove payments were nonmarital; district court’s credibility findings upheld; Jorgensen payment treated as rent
Whether awarding the 7-acre marital homestead (including the house) to Randall was an abuse of discretion	Marcia: no record evidence Randall’s farming operation would be affected; she has attachment to the home	Randall: homestead is proximate to farmed tracts/workshop; awarding home to Marcia would impair his farming operation	Court: Circumstantial evidence supported proximity to farm tracts; overall division reasonable; awarding homestead to Randall not an abuse of discretion

Key Cases Cited

Onstot v. Onstot, 298 Neb. 897 (2018) (de novo review gives weight to trial court credibility findings)
Doerr v. Doerr, 306 Neb. 350 (2020) (principles of equitable property division in dissolution)
Vanderveer v. Vanderveer, 964 N.W.2d 694 (2021) (three-step marital property classification, valuation, and division)
Johnson v. NM Farms Bartlett, 226 Neb. 680 (exception to statute of frauds when part performance shown)
Herbstreith v. Walls, 147 Neb. 805 (1946) (specific performance affirmed where unsigned agreement plus payment and possession supported enforceability)
Reed v. Reed, 277 Neb. 391 (2009) (all persons whose interests may be affected by equitable decree are necessary parties)
Jacobs Engr. Group v. ConAgra Foods, 301 Neb. 38 (2017) (circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences may support findings)