Tierney v. Tierney, 309 Neb. 310

Background

Kathryn and Lawrence Tierney divorced after separation in 2015; the marital estate included multiple ranch tracts: red (286.46 acres, contained marital home), pink, green, and an orange tract (~250–303 acres).
District court originally awarded the pink and red tracts (including the house) to Kathryn and green and orange to Lawrence, plus equalization payment to Kathryn; total estate ≈ $2.6M.
On direct appeal the Nebraska Court of Appeals modified the decree: it awarded the red and pink tracts to Lawrence (needed for ranch operations) but affirmed award of the marital home to Kathryn, creating a need to define a separate legal description for the home.
Kathryn moved for a metes-and-bounds description isolating the house on a 5.24-acre parcel (citing Custer County minimum 5-acre lot rule); Lawrence argued the home should be the 1-acre parcel valued at trial and raised law-of-the-case, zoning/primary jurisdiction, and valuation objections.
The district court adopted Kathryn’s 5.24-acre survey as the only adequate evidence and declined to override county zoning rules; Lawrence appealed. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court.

Issues

Issue	Kathryn's Argument	Lawrence's Argument	Held
Whether law-of-the-case barred awarding more than 1 acre with the home	Law-of-the-case inapplicable because the Court of Appeals did not decide acreage; acreage was not litigated on appeal	The Court of Appeals’ award of the house implicitly included the 1-acre parcel valued at trial; relitigation is barred	Court: Law-of-the-case does not apply; acreage was not decided on appeal, so district court did not err
Whether court had to defer to county zoning board / invoke primary jurisdiction	Court may describe property in divorce actions; zoning decisions (e.g., variances) are different and no variance was sought	District court should have worked with zoning authorities or required administrative exhaustion	Court: Primary jurisdiction not triggered; court may define legal description in divorce; zoning board not required first step
Whether awarding a 5.24-acre parcel (vs. 1 acre) was erroneous	Kathryn’s proposed survey was reasonable, preserved easements to Lawrence, and complied with county minimum lot rules	Awarding 5.24 acres deviates from trial valuation and harms Lawrence’s interests	Court: District court properly adopted Kathryn’s 5.24-acre description as the only evidence and to satisfy zoning rules; no error
Whether court should have adjusted valuation/equalization for larger parcel	Kathryn and court agreed no valuation adjustment was being sought	Lawrence asserted the change increased value and required accounting	Court: Lawrence waived valuation challenge by not seeking adjustment or presenting evidence below; issue forfeited

Key Cases Cited

Higgins v. Currier, 307 Neb. 748, 950 N.W.2d 631 (2020) (de novo-on-the-record review and abuse-of-discretion standard in dissolution matters)
Gonzales v. Nebraska Pediatric Practice, 308 Neb. 571, 955 N.W.2d 696 (2021) (explains law-of-the-case doctrine)
Koch v. Aupperle, 274 Neb. 52, 737 N.W.2d 869 (2007) (primary jurisdiction doctrine discussion)
Adair Holdings v. Johnson, 304 Neb. 720, 936 N.W.2d 517 (2020) (issue waiver where party failed to raise or present evidence at trial)