Stanosheck v. Jeanette
294 Neb. 138
| Neb. | 2016Background
- Elizabeth Stanosheck and Joseph Jeanette married in 2008; Elizabeth filed for dissolution in January 2014; they continued to reside together for much of the pendency of the case.
- Parties agreed to a comprehensive property settlement except three contested issues at trial: (1) valuation date (filing vs. trial), (2) division of $12,000 remaining from home sale (after $38,000 earmarked to repay a TSP loan), and (3) classification/division of appreciation in Joseph’s Thrift Savings Plan (TSP).
- Joseph had premarital retirement funds rolled into his TSP (including an $85,000 rollover) and the account appreciated during the marriage; both parties had retirement accounts predating the marriage with growth during marriage.
- The district court valued the marital estate at trial, treated the $12,000 as marital and split it equally, set off premarital TSP principal and the rollover amount as nonmarital, and classified all TSP growth during the marriage as marital, awarding Elizabeth 50% of the marital portion.
- Joseph appealed, arguing (inter alia) the valuation date was wrong, the $12,000 should reimburse him entirely, that some TSP growth attributable to premarital funds should remain nonmarital, and that the decree omitted a judgment entry reflecting his share of Elizabeth’s accounts.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed all rulings except it vacated and remanded the retirement-account division for further proceedings in light of Coufal v. Coufal and the need to consider whether certain passive growth on nonmarital principal may be nonmarital.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Stanosheck) | Defendant's Argument (Jeanette) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Valuation date: trial vs. filing | Value at time of trial (reflects assets then) | Value at filing date | Valuation at trial affirmed (no abuse of discretion) |
| $12,000 home-sale remainder | Split equally | Award entire $12,000 to Jeanette as loan repayment | Split equally affirmed (loan repayments made with marital earnings; debt marital) |
| Classification of TSP appreciation | All passive growth during marriage is marital and divisible | Growth attributable to premarital/nonmarital shares should remain nonmarital | Classification of retirement accounts vacated and remanded for further fact-specific analysis under Coufal framework |
| Omission of Joseph’s share of Elizabeth’s accounts in judgment | N/A (sought enforcement of stipulated split) | Judgment failed to reflect his share | Court declined to decide given remand; retirement-account decree vacated so issue unnecessary to resolve now |
Key Cases Cited
- Priest v. Priest, 251 Neb. 76 (recognizing marital portion of pensions/retirement earned during marriage are marital)
- Reichert v. Reichert, 246 Neb. 31 (same general rule re: retirement accounts and marital estate)
- Coufal v. Coufal, 291 Neb. 378 (narrow, fact-specific exception: passive, identifiable growth on premarital retirement principal may be nonmarital when growth is traceable and due solely to market/guaranteed return)