Stephens v. Stephens, 297 Neb. 188

Robert and Janet Stephens married in 1991; two children; divorce filed 2014. Janet has a long‑term mental illness and limited income; a guardian ad litem/guardian was appointed.
Robert co‑founded Stephens & Smith Construction Co., Inc., owned 34% stock before and throughout the marriage; his premarital stock value was about $298,459 and at dissolution about $5,044,934.
Robert worked full time as president during the 25‑year marriage and played a central leadership role; several related entities (R.I.P., Infinity, Heritage, Aardvark Partners, etc.) also appreciated.
The district court treated most of Robert’s interests in some entities as nonmarital (including Stephens & Smith and R.I.P.), awarded certain other partnered property as marital and ordered transfers, and granted Janet $1,000/month alimony for 120 months. The court also gave Janet a $1.1 million “Grace award.”
Janet appealed the classification of Stephens & Smith appreciation, the duration of § 42‑362 spousal support for mental illness, and the order to transfer partnered interests when partner consent might be required.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Janet)	Defendant's Argument (Robert)	Held
Whether appreciation of Robert’s Stephens & Smith stock during marriage is marital	Appreciation during marriage is marital (should be included)	Appreciation is nonmarital unless caused by nonowning spouse; here it’s premarital/passive	Court holds active appreciation rule applies: appreciation is marital to the extent caused by efforts of either spouse; reverses exclusion of Stephens & Smith appreciation and vacates Grace award; remands for valuation/division.
Duration of spousal support under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42‑362 for mentally ill spouse	Support should continue as long as Janet remains mentally ill	Trial court was within discretion to limit duration	Award of $1,000/month for 120 months is not an abuse of discretion; affirmed but court may revisit alimony amount on remand.
Ordering transfer of partnership/business interests where organizational documents require partner consent	Transfer may be impractical because other partners may refuse consent	Court can order property division by transfer; Robert will attempt required documentation	Affirmed: court acted within discretion to award ownership interests (parties may seek modification if transfer cannot be effected).

Van Newkirk v. Van Newkirk, 212 Neb. 730 (recognizing limits on treating inherited/premarital property as marital absent contributions)
Rezac v. Rezac, 221 Neb. 516 (holding appreciation of premarital corporate stock can be marital when caused by owner’s contributions/reinvestments)
Grace v. Grace, 221 Neb. 695 (permitting discretionary lump‑sum awards even when asset is nonmarital to achieve equity)
Meints v. Meints, 258 Neb. 1017 (adopting three‑step dual classification, valuation, and division process under § 42‑365)
Stanosheck v. Jeanette, 294 Neb. 138 (articulating test for when growth of nonmarital retirement accounts may be nonmarital)
Coufal v. Coufal, 291 Neb. 378 (applying active appreciation rule to retirement assets and burden on owning spouse to prove nonmarital growth)