Onstot v. Onstot, 298 Neb. 897

Mark and Maria Onstot married in 1999; Mark filed for dissolution in 2013 and the bench trial occurred in 2016.
Mark purchased a Bellevue house in 1990; at trial the house was appraised at $200,000 with a $32,538 loan balance. Mark claimed a $100,000 value at the 1999 marriage but provided no documentary proof of mortgage balance or equity at that time.
The district court awarded the house to Mark but treated the full $167,500 equity as marital property, ordered equal division, and directed Mark to pay Maria $83,746 or refinance/sell within 60 days.
Maria was found to be mentally ill; a guardian ad litem was appointed and Maria’s guardian testified at trial. Maria’s monthly income was $3,453 and expenses $3,721; she had been receiving temporary support.
The court awarded continuing spousal support under Neb. Rev. Stat. §42-362 of $700/month beginning July 1, 2016, continuing while mentally ill or until death or remarriage; the court later amended the decree to add termination upon Maria’s cohabitation.
On appeal Mark challenged the house division, the 60-day refinance deadline, and the support awards; Maria cross-appealed the cohabitation termination condition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mark)	Defendant's Argument (Maria)	Held
Whether Mark’s pre-marriage house equity is nonmarital property	House purchased before marriage; equity at marriage should be excluded or credited	Entire equity is marital because Mark failed to prove there was equity at marriage	Court held Mark failed to prove pre-marital equity; full equity included in marital estate (affirmed)
Whether 60-day refinance/sale deadline was proper	60 days is too short given Mark’s retirement income and support obligations	60 days was within trial court's discretion	Court found 60 days an abuse of discretion and extended deadline to 6 months from mandate (modified)
Whether temporary spousal support award ($1,500) was erroneous	Amount excessive; Mark cannot afford it	Temporary support was justified under §42-362	Appeal failed for lack of record (bill of exceptions); court did not review temporary award (no reversal)
Whether continuing spousal support ($700/month) under §42-362 was improper/excessive	Amount and duration are excessive given Mark’s limited income	Maria is mentally ill, unable to work, needs exceed income; support reasonable	Court affirmed $700/month continuation as not an abuse of discretion
Whether decree may condition termination of support on cohabitation	Cohabitation is proper termination ground	Court may include cohabitation	Court vacated the cohabitation termination clause as improper; cohabitation may, however, support later modification if it improves finances

Marshall v. Marshall, 902 N.W.2d 223 (2017) (standard of review for divorce-related determinations)
Bergmeier v. Bergmeier, 894 N.W.2d 266 (2017) (property brought into marriage generally excluded from marital estate)
Black v. Black, 388 N.W.2d 815 (1986) (application of §42-362; reasonableness as criterion for support for mentally ill spouse)
Heald v. Heald, 611 N.W.2d 598 (2000) (trial court discretion on timing for refinancing/sale)
Else v. Else, 367 N.W.2d 701 (1985) (courts cannot condition termination of spousal support on cohabitation as a matter of public policy)
Stephens v. Stephens, 899 N.W.2d 582 (2017) (cohabitation can justify modification when it improves former spouse's financial condition)
Peterson v. George, 96 N.W.2d 627 (1959) (affidavits must be included in bill of exceptions to be considered on appeal)