Osantowski v. Osantowski
298 Neb. 339
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Brian and Dori Osantowski married in September 2011, separated May 2014, and the district court dissolved the marriage after trial in 2016. The court divided assets and ordered Brian to pay Dori an equalization payment of $680,000.
- Brian operated a family-involved farming business; he owned multiple one‑third interests in farmland pre‑marriage and held significant stored and growing crops and bank account balances at marriage.
- Dori pursued graduate education (changed programs to benefit the farm), worked seasonally and later full time, and contributed some labor/administrative help to farm operations.
- Disputed valuation and classification issues centered on (a) premarital vs marital status of Brian’s stored/growing crops and premarital bank funds, (b) valuation date for crops in storage, (c) alleged double‑counting of a tractor downpayment/check, and (d) mathematical errors and unvalued debts/assets in the decree.
- Trial court treated crops differently than livestock (refused to treat crops as a single premarital asset like a cattle herd), denied Brian a setoff for premarital crops and premarital bank accounts (finding commingling), and awarded roughly half the marital estate to each spouse.
- On appeal the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed de novo, found some valuation, tracing, and arithmetic errors and plain errors, set off certain premarital assets and premarital‑debt reductions, corrected double‑counting, and reduced the equalization payment to $260,761.15.
Issues
| Issue | Brian's Argument | Dori's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether premarital stored and growing crops and premarital bank funds must be set off from marital estate | Brian argued he traced premarital crops and bank balances (showing $1,021,503.07 in premarital crops and $182,471 in premarital bank accounts) and was entitled to setoff | Dori argued premarital crops/proceeds were commingled and not traceable; relied on Brozek and trial court credibility findings | Court found Brian proved value of premarital stored/growing crops and bank balances and, given short marriage and equities, ordered setoff of $1,203,974.07 (premarital crops + accounts) from marital estate |
| Whether crops can be treated like a herd of cattle (single-asset tracing exception) | Brian urged crops be treated like livestock (as a single self‑sustaining asset for tracing) | Dori argued crops are not like cattle and should be treated as short‑term liquid products included in marital estate | Court held crops are categorically different from cattle herds and are not entitled to the cattle‑tracing treatment |
| Proper valuation date/quantity for crops in storage at separation | Brian argued the correct value at separation was 95,300.36 bushels × $4.66 = $444,099.68 (May 31, 2014) | Dori relied on March 20, 2014 balance sheet valuing stored crops at $573,750 and urged deference to trial court | Court found March 20 value caused double counting with bank deposits and awarded crop inventory at separation value $444,099.68 |
| Other accounting errors, double counting, and unvalued debts/assets | Brian argued the court double counted a $78,500 tractor downpayment and made arithmetic and omission errors (e.g., Roberts farm debt overvalued; premarital debt reductions not credited) | Dori contested many challenges and defended trial court allocations | Court found plain errors: corrected double counting (deducted $78,500), reduced Roberts farm debt by $22,784, awarded certain unvalued personal property to Brian per appraisals, credited reduction in Brian’s premarital debts ($708,824.69), and recalculated equalization payment to $260,761.15 |
Key Cases Cited
- Bergmeier v. Bergmeier, 296 Neb. 440 (discusses de novo review and three‑step § 42‑365 property classification/valuation/division)
- Sellers v. Sellers, 294 Neb. 346 (adopts limited tracing exception treating a cattle herd like a single asset in appropriate circumstances)
- Brozek v. Brozek, 292 Neb. 681 (refuses tracing/setoff when premarital assets are not adequately identified or are commingled over long marriages)
- Kalkowski v. Kalkowski, 258 Neb. 1035 (permits flexibility in treating stored/growing crops given equitable considerations)
- Davidson v. Davidson, 254 Neb. 656 (rare deviation from 1/3–1/2 guideline where extraordinary premarital earnings predominated)