Rohde v. Rohde, 927 N.W.2d 37

Sharon filed for dissolution after 21 years of marriage; the parties lived apart about 1 year before trial. Relevant assets: three Omaha properties (marital home and two note‑secured properties), two businesses (Metro Excavating, Storage Road Sales & Service), leases with Walvoord, bank and investment accounts (joint, commercial, investment), vehicles, household goods, and jewelry.
Keith operated Metro since 1989 and claimed ~23.13% of Metro was premarital; he also owned Storage Road and asserted premarital contributions for land/building costs.
The district court used different valuation dates for different assets (date of filing for some assets; date of trial for others; separate dates for some accounts/equipment sales) and allocated assets between the parties (Sharon received the marital home, KMT, some accounts and personal items; Keith received Metro, Storage Road, certain notes and equipment; some items were split equally).
The district court declined to apply a coverture formula to value a premarital portion of Metro, finding no evidence of Metro’s value at marriage and insufficient basis for such a method.
Keith appealed, arguing (1) all assets must be valued on a single date, (2) the court should have applied a coverture formula to allocate a premarital portion of Metro, and (3) assorted valuation/classification errors. The Supreme Court reviewed de novo and affirmed.

Issue	Keith's Argument	Sharon's Argument	Held
Whether all assets must be valued on a single date	District court must pick one valuation date for entire marital estate	Trial court may use valuation dates rationally related to each asset	Court refused to mandate one date; valuation dates may vary if rationally related to assets
Whether coverture formula must be used to allocate premarital business value	Metro's premarital portion equals months pre‑marriage / total months (23.13%) and should be excluded from marital estate	No admissible evidence of Metro’s value at marriage; coverture not appropriate absent reliable basis	Court declined to adopt/coerce coverture here; rejected allocation without evidence of premarital value
Whether district court misclassified/valued specific assets (Storage Road, leases, accounts, vehicles, jewelry, downpayment)	Various challenges to classifications, tax adjustments, and appraisals	Court’s valuations were supported by evidence and rational dates; differences minimal or unpreserved	Court affirmed — no abuse of discretion; numerical discrepancies immaterial (<0.5%) and not corrected below
Whether trial court abused discretion by not considering tax consequences or earlier lease payments	Keith argued tax effects and lease payments should reduce awards	Sharon argued no legal error and evidence supported court’s approach	Court held no abuse of discretion; tax adjustments and timing issues not shown to render division unfair

Osantowski v. Osantowski, 298 Neb. 339 (discussing de novo review and appellate weight given to trial court factfindings)
Brozek v. Brozek, 292 Neb. 681 (approving use of different valuation dates when rationally related to assets)
Davidson v. Davidson, 254 Neb. 656 (recognizing pragmatic valuation dates and net worth approaches tied to facts)
Walker v. Walker, 9 Neb. App. 694 (stating no hard‑and‑fast rule requiring single valuation date; rational relationship test)
Webster v. Webster, 271 Neb. 788 (describing coverture formula application to pensions)
Bergmeier v. Bergmeier, 296 Neb. 440 (discussing coverture formula in nonmarital allocation contexts)