Seemann v. Seemann
316 Neb. 671
Neb.2024Background
- Clint and Lisa Seemann were married in 2005, entered into a premarital agreement, and had three children. Clint filed for dissolution in 2021.
- During the marriage, Clint received gifts of property and stock from his father; some assets increased in value or were commingled with marital property.
- The district court entered a decree dividing the marital estate, awarding Lisa alimony, attorney fees, and other relief. Lisa appealed, challenging classification, valuation, and division of assets, as well as alimony and fees.
- The premarital agreement contained provisions relevant to the treatment of gifted property and appreciation of assets during marriage.
- The Supreme Court conducted a de novo review, modifying some asset valuations and classifications, and remanded for an equitable division consistent with its opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforcement of Premarital Provision on Stock Sale | Lisa argued she should have received more shares due to Clint selling shares without her written consent. | Clint argued both parties benefited from the sale; proceeds went to the marital home. | Court upheld equal division of remaining shares; agreement did not specify a remedy for breach. |
| Classification of Appreciation in Gifted LLC | Lisa: Appreciation due to marital efforts should be marital property per agreement and "active appreciation" rule. | Clint: Agreement excludes all rights in gifted property, including appreciation. | Court found appreciation due to Clint's active efforts is marital property under both agreement and law. |
| Classification/Commingling of Gifted Stock | Lisa: Gifted stock commingled in marital account and served as loan collateral, so appreciation is marital. | Clint: Shares were traceable; mere holding/investment is passive, not active appreciation. | Gifted shares remained separate property; appreciation was passive; not marital. |
| Valuation and Equalization Payment | Lisa: Court omitted certain assets and overvalued her retirement; payment to Clint therefore erroneous. | Clint: Court’s valuations proper; Lisa’s claims regarding values are unsupported. | Court found certain assets omitted and one overvalued; reversed equalization payment and remanded for new division. |
| Alimony Award | Lisa: Alimony insufficient in amount and duration considering marriage length and circumstances. | Clint: Award reflected Lisa’s needs, earning capacity, and temporary support received. | Court found district court did not abuse discretion on alimony given facts and Lisa’s circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- Simons v. Simons, 312 Neb. 136 (2022) (premarital agreements governed by contract law, subject to statutory fair disclosure requirement)
- Stephens v. Stephens, 297 Neb. 188 (2017) (active appreciation rule: growth in nonmarital assets during marriage presumed marital if due to marital effort)
- Parde v. Parde, 313 Neb. 779 (2023) (general principles for division of marital estate and property valuation)
- Eis v. Eis, 310 Neb. 243 (2021) (commingling occurs only if separate property is inextricably mixed with marital property)
- Cornwell v. Cornwell, 309 Neb. 156 (2021) (factors for attorney fee awards in dissolution actions)