Osantowski v. Osantowski, 298 Neb. 339

Background

Brian and Dori Osantowski were married Sept. 23, 2011, separated May 2014; dissolution trial occurred Jan.–Feb. 2016. Court divided marital estate and ordered Brian to pay equalization to Dori.
Brian is a farmer who owned multiple one-third interests in farming real estate and had substantial stored and growing crops and premarital bank balances at marriage. Dori was graduate student/professional who contributed some labor and changed her program to support the farming operation.
Major contested assets: (1) premarital stored and growing crops and whether their value should be set off from the marital estate; (2) valuation/date-of-valuation for crops in storage at separation; (3) certain equipment, prepaid farm expenses, bank accounts, and allocation of specific debts.
Trial court found crops are not like a cattle herd for tracing, treated many crop proceeds as commingled, awarded Brian many assets but gave no setoff for substantial premarital crops/bank accounts, and valued crops in storage using a March 20, 2014 balance sheet; ordered Brian to pay $680,000 (about half of estate).
On appeal, Nebraska Supreme Court agreed crops are not traceable like a cattle herd but found trial court abused discretion and committed plain error in several valuations and in failing to set off premarital crop/bank-account value and the reduction in Brian’s premarital debts resulting from marital funds.
Court recalculated the estate, set off $1,021,503.07 for premarital stored and growing crops and $182,471 for premarital bank accounts, corrected double-counting and other errors, and modified the equalization payment to $260,761.15.

Issues

Issue	Brian's Argument	Dori's Argument	Held
Whether premarital stored and growing crops (and proceeds/bank balances) must be set off from marital estate	Brian: proved value of premarital crops/bank accounts and should receive setoff; crops traceable or treated like a single asset	Dori: premarital crops/proceeds were commingled; tracing fails; trial court correctly included them in marital estate	Court: crops are not like cattle herds; but here equities and evidence supported setting off $1,021,503.07 (crops) and $182,471 (bank accounts) due to short marriage and clear valuations
Whether crops should be treated like a cattle herd for tracing	Brian: biological commodity similar to livestock; treat as single asset for tracing	Dori: herd analogy inapplicable; crops are short-term liquid products	Court: agricultural crops categorically differ from cattle herds and are not entitled to herd-style tracing treatment
Proper valuation/date for crops in storage at separation	Brian: value should be as of actual separation (May 31, 2014) — lower amount	Dori: trial court could credit March 20, 2014 balance sheet; factual dispute for trial court	Court: trial court abused discretion by using March 20 balance sheet (double-counted with bank deposits); awarded value as of separation $444,099.68
Misc. asset/debt accounting errors and equitable division	Brian: trial court double-counted items, misvalued debts, and division was inequitable given premarital contributions	Dori: court distribution was equitable; Brian had opportunity to segregate family property and did not	Court: found plain error and other valuation mistakes (e.g., $78,500 double count, Roberts farm debt misvalued, omitted assets/debts); corrected values and affirmed equal division as modified — equalization payment set at $260,761.15

Key Cases Cited

Bergmeier v. Bergmeier, 296 Neb. 440 (sets three-step equitable property division under § 42-365)
Brozek v. Brozek, 292 Neb. 681 (discusses tracing, commingling, and treatment of premarital crops/bank accounts)
Schuman v. Schuman, 265 Neb. 459 (appellate review standard in domestic relations matters)
Kalkowski v. Kalkowski, 258 Neb. 1035 (discusses treatment of stored and growing crops and court flexibility)
Davidson v. Davidson, 254 Neb. 656 (permitting deviation from the typical one-third to one-half range in unique circumstances)