Seemann v. Seemann
318 Neb. 643
Neb.2025Background
- Clint and Lisa Seemann married in 2005 and signed a premarital (antenuptial) agreement before their marriage, listing certain assets and addressing how property would be divided upon divorce or death.
- In a dissolution proceeding, the district court initially divided assets, listing those in the Agreement as marital property requiring equal division, but divided the remainder of the marital estate inequitably.
- Lisa appealed, arguing the district court failed to divide the entire marital estate equally as required by the premarital agreement.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court, in a prior appeal (Seemann I), found the district court had omitted assets from the marital estate and misvalued others, and remanded for a proper division.
- On remand, the district court again split the marital estate into two groups: (1) assets listed in the Agreement (divided equally), and (2) the remainder (not divided equally), ultimately awarding Lisa about 45% and Clint about 55% of the total marital estate.
- Lisa again appealed, contending the premarital agreement required an equal division of the entire marital estate, not just the listed assets.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interpretation of paragraph 8 of premarital agreement—does it require equal division of entire marital estate or only listed assets? | Lisa: Requires equal division of entire marital estate, not just listed assets. | Clint: Only requires equal division of assets listed in the agreement; rest subject to equitable (not necessarily equal) division. | The Agreement unambiguously requires equal division of the entire marital estate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stava v. Stava, 318 Neb. 32 (Neb. 2024) (explaining marital vs. nonmarital property in divorce)
- Stephens v. Stephens, 297 Neb. 188 (Neb. 2017) (describing the active appreciation rule for marital property)
- Wintroub v. Nationstar Mortgage, 303 Neb. 15 (Neb. 2019) (contract interpretation principles: ambiguity determination and context)
- Wood v. Wood, 266 Neb. 580 (Neb. 2003) (plain meaning rule for contracts)
- U. P. Terminal F. C. U. v. Employers M. L. Ins. Co., 172 Neb. 190 (Neb. 1961) (grammatical arrangement in contract interpretation)