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.
- Pre‑marriage, Brian owned significant farming assets: premarital cash accounts, four one‑third interests in farmland, and substantial stored and growing crops (2010–2011 production). He farmed with his brothers and received family support (discounted rent, fuel, equipment sharing).
- During the 31‑month marriage, some premarital crop proceeds were deposited into farm accounts, marital crops were produced and sold, and marital debts and prepaid farm expenses were incurred; Dori worked, pursued graduate studies in plant health, and assisted with farm-related tasks and household duties.
- The trial court refused to treat premarital crops like a livestock herd for tracing, found premarital crops/proceeds commingled with marital assets, awarded Brian many assets (including crops in storage valued at $573,750) but did not set off premarital crop/bank values, and awarded Dori roughly half the marital estate.
- On appeal, Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed de novo, concluding crops are not traceable like cattle herds, but identified trial-court valuation, double‑counting, and plain‑error mistakes; it determined Brian was entitled to setoffs for premarital stored and growing crops and reduced premarital debt benefits should be credited to him.
- The Supreme Court modified the decree: it assigned values to premarital stored/growing crops, corrected double counts and debt valuations, included the reduction in premarital debt as an asset to Brian, recalculated the marital estate, and ordered an equalization payment of $260,761.15 from Brian to Dori.
Issues
| Issue | Brian's Argument | Dori's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether premarital stored and growing crops must be set off as nonmarital property | Brian: his premarital crops (and proceeds) were traceable and should be credited against the marital estate; alternatively, treat crops like a cattle herd (single asset) for tracing | Dori: premarital crops/proceeds were commingled and not traceable; Brozek supports treating them as marital if commingled | Court: crops are categorically different from cattle herds and not entitled to herd‑style tracing; however, on these facts Brian proved premarital crop value and short marriage/equities required a $1,021,503.07 setoff for premarital crops and $182,471 for premarital bank accounts (total setoff) |
| Whether the trial court double‑counted/prepaid items and misvalued assets (tractor/downpayment and other items) | Brian: court awarded the $78,500 downpayment (check) as a prepaid marital asset and also awarded the tractor without deducting the downpayment (double count) | Dori: the listings reflected marital prepaid expenses and ownership; court valuations were within its discretion | Court: abused discretion—double counting occurred; $78,500 should be deducted from tractor value and other listed assets corrected |
| Whether crops in storage should be valued as of March 20, 2014 (balance sheet) rather than date of separation (May 31, 2014) | Brian: valuation should be May 31, 2014 (95,300.36 bu; $444,099.68) because stored grain had been sold between March and May | Dori: valuation factual; defer to trial court credibility findings | Court: abused discretion by relying on March 20 figure while also using bank balances as of May 31 (double counting); awarded crop inventory value at $444,099.68 as of separation |
| Whether overall division was inequitable given short marriage and premarital contributions | Brian: inequitable to split roughly half; he contributed most assets premaritally and marriage was short—should get <33% to reflect premarital contributions | Dori: she made contributions (education choice, work, household, travel), income during marriage; equal division supported | Court: after correcting setoffs and valuation errors, equalization to give Dori one‑half was not an abuse of discretion; modified equalization payment to $260,761.15 |
Key Cases Cited
- Bergmeier v. Bergmeier, 296 Neb. 440 (2017) (standards for de novo review and three‑step equitable division under § 42‑365)
- White v. White, 296 Neb. 772 (2017) (appellate review principles in domestic relations matters)
- Brozek v. Brozek, 292 Neb. 681 (2016) (treatment of premarital crops and commingling analysis)
- Sellers v. Sellers, 294 Neb. 346 (2016) (adopting Court of Appeals approach treating a cattle herd as a single asset for tracing in appropriate circumstances)
- Schuman v. Schuman, 265 Neb. 459 (2003) (appellate power to enter the order that should have been made when reviewing domestic relations matters)
- Kalkowski v. Kalkowski, 258 Neb. 1035 (2000) (flexibility in treatment of stored and growing crops based on equities)
- Davidson v. Davidson, 254 Neb. 656 (1997) (permitting deviation from typical one‑third to one‑half split in unique circumstances where premarital earnings predominated)