Osantowski v. Osantowski
298 Neb. 339
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Brian and Dori Osantowski married in September 2011, separated in May 2014, and the trial court entered a dissolution decree after a two-day trial in 2016.
- Brian operated a family-associated grain farming business; he owned multiple one-third interests in farmland before the marriage and had substantial stored and growing crops and bank balances at the time of marriage.
- Dori was a graduate student who changed programs during the marriage (at Brian’s request) and worked seasonally; she contributed some farm-related work and household labor.
- The trial court awarded premarital nonmarital assets to each party but found premarital crops and proceeds commingled with marital assets and did not give Brian an offset; it treated stored/growing crops and other farm assets as marital in large part and ordered an equalization payment of $680,000 to split the marital estate roughly equally.
- Brian appealed, arguing (inter alia) that premarital stored and growing crops should have been traced/set off (he urged treating crops like a herd for tracing), that the court double-counted and misvalued certain assets/debts, and that the distribution was inequitable given the short marriage and his premarital contributions.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed/modifed in part, set values for several items, found certain plain errors (including double-counting and incorrect debt valuations), credited Brian with premarital crop/bank values and reduction in premarital debt, and ordered a revised equalization payment of $260,761.15.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Brian) | Defendant's Argument (Dori) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether premarital stored and growing crops must be set off from the marital estate / whether crops can be treated like a cattle herd for tracing | Crops were premarital and traceable; crops should be treated like a herd (single asset) so premarital inventory/value can be set off | Crops and proceeds were commingled and not traceable; crops differ from herds and may be treated as marital income/assets | Crops are categorically different from cattle herds; court must apply tracing but equities permit setoff here — appellate court set premarital crop value at $1,021,503.07 and granted setoff due to short marriage and clear record evidence |
| Whether trial court double-counted or misvalued assets (e.g., tractor downpayment and stored crops) | Trial court double-counted a $78,500 downpayment (check No. 1718) and improperly valued crops using March balance sheet rather than separation date | Dori contended valuation choices were factual credibility calls for the trial court | Court found double-counting and abuse of discretion; deducted the $78,500 and revalued stored crops at $444,099.68 (value as of separation) |
| Whether trial court failed to assign/set off premarital bank accounts and premarital debt reduction | Brian argued premarital bank balances and premarital-debt reductions during marriage should be credited/set off against marital estate | Dori argued funds/proceeds were commingled and Brozek controls (no setoff) | Court determined premarital bank accounts ($182,471) and premarital crops warranted setoff; also awarded Brian value for reduction in premarital debts paid with marital funds ($708,824.69) based on equities |
| Whether the overall division (≈50/50) was inequitable given short marriage and parties’ contributions | Brian sought less than 33% to Dori (analogous to Davidson) because most estate resulted from his premarital efforts | Dori argued she contributed (education change, work, household burdens) and equal split was reasonable | Court upheld a roughly equal division after adjustments; modified equalization payment to $260,761.15 (appellate court concluded trial court’s equal split was not an abuse of discretion after corrections) |
Key Cases Cited
- Bergmeier v. Bergmeier, 296 Neb. 440 (sets standard for de novo review in dissolution matters)
- Brozek v. Brozek, 292 Neb. 681 (tracing premarital assets and treatment of premarital crops/proceeds)
- Sellers v. Sellers, 294 Neb. 346 (discusses treating a cattle herd as a single asset for tracing under certain equities)
- Schuman v. Schuman, 265 Neb. 459 (appellate power to enter the order that should have been made on de novo review)
- Kalkowski v. Kalkowski, 258 Neb. 1035 (flexibility in treating stored/growing crops and distinction between income and unrealized income in farming)
- Davidson v. Davidson, 254 Neb. 656 (permitting deviation from typical 33–50% range in unique short-term marriage circumstances)