Osantowski v. Osantowski
298 Neb. 339
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Brian and Dori Osantowski were married in September 2011, separated in May 2014, and divorced after trial in 2016; the district court divided marital property and ordered Brian to pay an equalization of $680,000.
- Brian operated a family-affiliated farming business; he owned several one‑third interests in farmland and carried substantial premarital stored and growing crops and bank balances at the time of marriage.
- Dori was a graduate student who shifted programs to support the marriage, worked summers, and later earned salary and benefits; she performed limited farm-related assistance and household duties.
- Major contested valuation items included (1) whether premarital stored and growing crops and premarital bank accounts should be set off from the marital estate, (2) the proper valuation/date for crops in storage at separation, and (3) alleged double‑counting and mathematical errors in the trial court’s asset/debt tallies.
- The trial court refused to treat crops like a herd of cattle for tracing, found premarital proceeds commingled and denied setoffs, valued certain crop inventory as of March 20, 2014, and awarded roughly half the marital estate to each party.
- On appeal the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed some rulings but found errors (including failure to set off proven premarital crop/bank values, double‑counting, misvalued debts, and valuation timing for stored crops) and remodified the equalization payment to $260,761.15.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Brian) | Defendant's Argument (Dori) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brian’s premarital stored and growing crops and premarital bank accounts must be set off from the marital estate | Brian argued he proved premarital crop and account values and was entitled to setoff (or treat crops like a single asset akin to a cattle herd) | Dori argued premarital proceeds were commingled, tracing failed, and Brozek/Bergmeier support denying setoff | Court held crops are not like cattle herds; but on the equities and record the court abused discretion by not setting off proven premarital crops and bank accounts ($1,021,503.07 + $182,471 = setoff awarded) |
| Whether agricultural crops can be traced/treated like a cattle herd for tracing purposes | Brian urged treating crops as a single, self‑sustaining asset for tracing similar to Shafer/Sellers | Dori relied on cases denying such treatment for crops and argued commingling | Court held crops differ categorically from cattle herds and rejected treating crops as a single traceable asset for tracing purposes |
| Proper valuation date/amount for crops in storage at separation (March 20, 2014 vs. May 31, 2014) | Brian argued the correct storage quantity and value at separation yielded $444,099.68 (95,300.36 bu at $4.66) | Dori urged deference to trial court's acceptance of March 20, 2014 balance sheet showing $573,750 | Court held trial court abused discretion by valuing at March 20 reconciled with bank balance and sales; corrected storage value to $444,099.68 to avoid double‑counting |
| Whether trial court double‑counted or miscoded assets/debts (e.g., $78,500 downpayment, Roberts farm debt, unvalued items) | Brian asserted double counting and mathematical errors inflated his awarded marital estate and demanded correction | Dori generally defended the court's allocations and valuations | Court found plain error and abuse: deducted double‑counting (downpayment), corrected Roberts farm debt ($22,784 error), valued miscellaneous items, awarded credit for reduction in Brian’s premarital debts paid with marital funds, and recalculated equalization to $260,761.15 |
Key Cases Cited
- Sellers v. Sellers, 294 Neb. 346 (discussing when a cattle herd may be treated as a single asset for tracing)
- Brozek v. Brozek, 292 Neb. 681 (refusing to extend livestock tracing rationale to machinery and discussing commingling/tracing over long marriages)
- Kalkowski v. Kalkowski, 258 Neb. 1035 (permitting flexible treatment of stored/growing crops and focusing on equity and facts of each case)
- Davidson v. Davidson, 254 Neb. 656 (deviation from the typical one‑third to one‑half rule when unique premarital earnings/increase overwhelmingly belong to one spouse)