Zelenka v. Pratte, 300 Neb. 100

Parties were long-term romantic partners who lived together in a house owned by Pratte; they separated in June 2015 and Zelenka moved out briefly, then returned to find locks changed and personal property withheld.
Zelenka filed suit (styled as conversion) seeking return of various personal items, including a French bulldog named Pavlov; the parties actually tried the case as replevin before a bench trial.
Disputed items included Pavlov and multiple household items (couch, lamps, vacuum, patio furniture, African souvenirs, etc.). Both parties gave conflicting testimony about purchase and ownership of many items.
Key evidence for Pavlov: breeder testified Pratte contacted her to buy a puppy as a gift for his boyfriend, arranged a visit where Zelenka picked the puppy, breeder spayed and microchipped the puppy and released it to Zelenka with adoption paperwork; Zelenka and his mother testified the dog was a birthday gift. Pratte admitted paying but denied intent to gift.
District court found Pavlov was a gift to Zelenka and ordered return; it found Zelenka failed to prove ownership of most other items. Both sides appealed (Pratte appealed; Zelenka cross-appealed). The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Pavlov a valid inter vivos gift to Zelenka?	Zelenka: Pratte intended to gift the puppy; Zelenka accepted and took possession from the breeder; breeder corroborates gift intent and delivery.	Pratte: He paid for the puppy for household use (companion for his dog), did not intend to transfer title; dog remained at his house after adoption.	Court: Gift proven — donative intent, delivery via breeder, and acceptance by Zelenka satisfied; ordered return.
Were certain household items (Niche couch, two Niche lamps, French bulldog lamp) owned by Zelenka?	Zelenka: He purchased these items for personal use and not as gifts.	Pratte: Claimed they were gifts from Zelenka but offered no evidence of donative intent/delivery/acceptance (only a social media post re couch).	Court: Reversed district court as to these three items — undisputed they were purchased by Zelenka and Pratte failed to prove they were gifts; items should be returned to Zelenka.
Burden of proof for other disputed personal property?	Zelenka: Asserted ownership of many items with testimony (often cash purchases, little documentation).	Pratte: Produced receipts and conflicting testimony asserting his ownership of many items.	Court: Affirmed district court — contradictory evidence left factual credibility issues; Zelenka failed to meet burden as to those items.

Gallner v. Larson, 291 Neb. 205 (discussing conversion and standard of review for bench trials)
Blinn v. Beatrice Community Hosp. & Health Ctr., 270 Neb. 809 (amendment of pleadings and treating issues tried by consent as raised)
Ferer v. Aaron Ferer & Sons Co., 273 Neb. 701 (elements and proof standard for inter vivos gifts)
Packett v. Lincolnland Towing, 227 Neb. 595 (replevin plaintiff's burden to prove ownership, entitlement to possession, and wrongful detention)
Kennedy v. Nelson, 125 Neb. 185 (delivery of gifts through third parties)