Rohde v. Rohde
303 Neb. 85
| Neb. | 2019Background
- Sharon filed for dissolution in November 2016 after 21 years of marriage; parties lived separate for ~1 year before trial. Key assets: three Omaha properties (marital home at 184th Plaza, two properties secured by notes), two businesses (Metro Excavating Inc. and Storage Road Sales & Service Inc.), KMT Storage Company (Sharon), various bank/investment/commercial/joint accounts, leases (Walvoord Leases), vehicles, jewelry, and household goods.
- Appraisals and valuation dates varied: some assets were valued at date of filing, others at date of trial, and some on other dates; parties offered conflicting valuations and limited evidence for certain dates.
- Keith claimed a premarital (nonmarital) portion of Metro (arguing ~23.13% based on months operated pre-marriage) and sought a single uniform valuation date for all assets; he also raised other valuation/classification challenges (first-home downpayment, Storage Road nonmarital value, tax consequences of leases, $50,000 withdrawal from joint account).
- The district court allocated assets between the parties, used multiple valuation dates it found rationally related to each asset, declined to apply a coverture formula to Metro, and made minor mathematical variations in its decree; Keith appealed.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court, holding the court did not abuse its discretion in valuation-date choices, in classifying Metro as entirely marital (no credible premarital valuation evidence), or in the overall division.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Keith) | Defendant's Argument (Sharon) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether all assets must be valued as of a single date | District court erred by using multiple valuation dates; remand to value everything on one date | Court may use valuation dates rationally related to each asset; no single-date mandate | Court: No single-date requirement; trial court may use multiple dates if rationally related to each asset; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether coverture formula must be used to allocate premarital value of Metro | Coverture formula should allocate 23.13% of Metro as nonmarital (months pre-marriage) | Coverture is inappropriate for businesses; Keith bore burden to prove nonmarital portion and failed to do so | Court: Declined to adopt coverture for business valuation here; no credible evidence of premarital value; Metro fully marital |
| Classification/valuation of specific assets (Storage Road, 184th Plaza home, joint accounts, leases, tools) | Various challenges to classifications, appraisals, tax treatment of leases, and $50k withdrawal adjustment | District court’s findings supported by evidence and witness credibility determinations | Court: No abuse of discretion; district court’s classifications/valuations stand |
| Mathematical errors in decree and failure to correct at trial | Errors affected equalization calculation; should be corrected/remanded | Variations are minor (<0.5% of estate); Keith’s counsel approved decree and did not move to alter/amend | Court: Differences immaterial and not unjust; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Osantowski v. Osantowski, 298 Neb. 339 (discussing de novo review and abuse of discretion standard in dissolution)
- Brozek v. Brozek, 292 Neb. 681 (affirming use of different valuation dates for certain assets)
- Davidson v. Davidson, 254 Neb. 656 (approving valuation methods rationally related to property)
- Walker v. Walker, 9 Neb. App. 694 (no hard-and-fast rule requiring single valuation date; date must bear rational relationship)
- Blaine v. Blaine, 275 Neb. 87 (purpose of assigning valuation date is equitable division)
- Webster v. Webster, 271 Neb. 788 (application of coverture formula to pensions)
- Bergmeier v. Bergmeier, 296 Neb. 440 (coverture formula applied to certain employment termination payments)