Doerr v. Doerr , 306 Neb. 350 ( 2020 )


Menu:
  • Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
    www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
    07/31/2020 08:09 AM CDT
    - 350 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    306 Nebraska Reports
    DOERR v. DOERR
    Cite as 
    306 Neb. 350
    Tammy M. Doerr, appellee, v.
    Brian P. Doerr, appellant.
    ___ N.W.2d ___
    Filed July 2, 2020.     No. S-19-418.
    1. Divorce: Child Custody: Child Support: Property Division:
    Alimony: Attorney Fees: Appeal and Error. In a marital dissolution
    action, an appellate court reviews the case de novo on the record to
    determine whether there has been an abuse of discretion by the trial
    judge. This standard of review applies to the trial court’s determinations
    regarding custody, child support, division of property, alimony, and
    attorney fees.
    2. Evidence: Appeal and Error. In a review de novo on the record, an
    appellate court is required to make independent factual determinations
    based upon the record, and the court reaches its own independent con-
    clusions with respect to the matters at issue.
    3. Judges: Words and Phrases. A judicial abuse of discretion exists if the
    reasons or rulings of a trial judge are clearly untenable, unfairly depriv-
    ing a litigant of a substantial right and denying just results in matters
    submitted for disposition.
    4. Divorce: Property Division. In a divorce action, the purpose of a prop-
    erty division is to distribute the marital assets equitably between the
    parties.
    5. Property Division. Equitable property division is a three-step process.
    The first step is to classify the parties’ property as marital or nonmarital.
    The second step is to value the marital assets and marital liabilities of
    the parties. The third step is to calculate and divide the net marital estate
    between the parties.
    6. ____. As a general rule, a spouse should be awarded one-third to one-
    half of the marital estate, the polestar being fairness and reasonableness
    as determined by the facts of each case.
    7. Divorce: Property Division. The marital estate does not include prop-
    erty that a spouse acquired before the marriage, or by gift or inheritance.
    - 351 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    306 Nebraska Reports
    DOERR v. DOERR
    Cite as 
    306 Neb. 350
    8. Divorce: Property Division: Proof. The burden of proof rests with the
    party claiming that property is nonmarital.
    9. Divorce: Property Division. Separate property becomes marital prop-
    erty by commingling if it is inextricably mixed with marital property or
    with the separate property of the other spouse. If the separate property
    remains segregated or is traceable into its product, commingling does
    not occur.
    10. Courts: Evidence. A court is not bound to accept a party’s word in
    lieu of documentary evidence; a court is able to assess the credibility
    of the evidence presented to it and determine to what evidence to give
    weight.
    Appeal from the District Court for Dodge County: Geoffrey
    C. Hall, Judge. Affirmed.
    Michael J. Wilson, of Berry Law Firm, for appellant.
    Michael J. Tasset, of Johnson & Mock, P.C., L.L.O., for
    appellee.
    Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke,
    Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.
    Heavican, C.J.
    INTRODUCTION
    The district court dissolved the marriage of Tammy M.
    Doerr and Brian P. Doerr. Brian appeals the court’s property
    division. We affirm.
    BACKGROUND
    Tammy and Brian met in March 2008 and were engaged
    later that year. The couple was married in April 2012. Both had
    children from previous marriages, but no children were born to
    the couple. Tammy filed for divorce in September 2016. A trial
    was held, and a decree dissolving the parties’ marriage was
    filed February 19, 2019.
    Real Property.
    As relevant on appeal, the district court for Dodge County
    found that Tammy and Brian worked together to purchase
    - 352 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    306 Nebraska Reports
    DOERR v. DOERR
    Cite as 
    306 Neb. 350
    and remodel the couple’s home on Howard Street in Fremont,
    Nebraska (Howard Street home), during the marriage. The
    court valued the home at $350,000. The district court found
    that Tammy invested $40,000 and that Brian invested $50,000
    as a downpayment. The court further found that the funds used
    to pay for the home were commingled in the time before and
    after the purchase of the home. The district court therefore
    awarded the home to Brian, but awarded half of the home’s
    value, or $165,000, to Tammy, less $10,000 to account for
    Brian’s larger share of the home’s downpayment.
    Bank Accounts.
    The couple had various bank accounts, some of which were
    jointly held and others which were individually held. At or
    near the time of separation, Tammy transferred funds from the
    parties’ joint money market account with Union Bank into her
    individual checking account with another bank. The district
    court found that $108,600 of the funds transferred were marital
    and ordered an equal division—$54,300 to each party. The par-
    ties’ other bank accounts were awarded to the party in whose
    name each respective account was held.
    Debts.
    The district court ordered that each party should pay marital
    debts held in their respective names, as well as debts individu-
    ally incurred since the filing of the divorce action.
    Equalization Payment.
    Based on the court’s determination of the various equity
    shares of each of the parties, the district court ordered Brian
    to make an equalization payment to Tammy in the amount of
    $110,700.
    ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
    Brian assigns that the district court erred in (1) awarding
    Tammy $165,000 in equity in the Howard Street home, (2)
    awarding Tammy $54,300 from the Union Bank account,
    - 353 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    306 Nebraska Reports
    DOERR v. DOERR
    Cite as 
    306 Neb. 350
    (3) failing to award Brian $12,831.67 in funds held in a
    U.S. Bank account controlled by Tammy, (4) failing to order
    Tammy to pay one-half of $16,207.76 in debts, and (5) order-
    ing Brian to pay an equalization payment to Tammy in the
    amount of $110,700.
    STANDARD OF REVIEW
    [1] In a marital dissolution action, an appellate court reviews
    the case de novo on the record to determine whether there has
    been an abuse of discretion by the trial judge. This standard
    of review applies to the trial court’s determinations regarding
    custody, child support, division of property, alimony, and attor-
    ney fees. 1
    [2] In a review de novo on the record, an appellate court
    is required to make independent factual determinations based
    upon the record, and the court reaches its own independent
    conclusions with respect to the matters at issue. 2
    [3] A judicial abuse of discretion exists if the reasons or rul-
    ings of a trial judge are clearly untenable, unfairly depriving a
    litigant of a substantial right and denying just results in matters
    submitted for disposition. 3
    ANALYSIS
    On appeal, Brian’s argument centers around what he claims
    are the proceeds from his separate property, and he alleges
    that the district court erred in awarding half of those proceeds
    to Tammy. In summary, Brian argues that he paid the entire
    $262,000 purchase price of the Howard Street home from the
    proceeds he earned selling a home he had owned in Fontanelle,
    Nebraska. Brian further asserts that the remainder of the pro-
    ceeds were deposited into the couple’s money market account
    and that the balance of that account never dipped below the
    amount of the proceeds he deposited.
    1
    White v. White, 
    304 Neb. 945
    , 
    937 N.W.2d 838
    (2020).
    2
    Id. 3
        Id.
    - 354 -
    
                 Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    306 Nebraska Reports
    DOERR v. DOERR
    Cite as 
    306 Neb. 350
    Tammy later transferred $108,600 from that money market
    account into her individual checking account. Brian contends
    that those funds are traceable to the sale of his separate prop-
    erty, that the funds are themselves separate property, and
    that the district court erred in awarding Tammy half of that
    amount.
    [4-6] In a divorce action, the purpose of a property division
    is to distribute the marital assets equitably between the parties. 4
    Equitable property division is a three-step process. 5 The first
    step is to classify the parties’ property as marital or nonmari-
    tal. 6 The second step is to value the marital assets and marital
    liabilities of the parties. 7 The third step is to calculate and
    divide the net marital estate between the parties. 8 As a general
    rule, a spouse should be awarded one-third to one-half of the
    marital estate, the polestar being fairness and reasonableness as
    determined by the facts of each case. 9
    [7-9] The marital estate does not include property that a
    spouse acquired before the marriage, or by gift or inherit­
    ance. 10 The burden of proof rests with the party claiming that
    property is nonmarital. 11 Setting aside nonmarital property is
    simple if the spouse possesses the original asset, but can be
    problematic if the original asset no longer exists. 12 Separate
    property becomes marital property by commingling if it is
    inextricably mixed with marital property or with the separate
    property of the other spouse. 13 If the separate property remains
    4
    Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (Reissue 2016).
    5
    White, supra note 1.
    6
    Id. 7
         Id.
    8
    
         Id.
    9
    
         Osantowski v. Osantowski, 
    298 Neb. 339
    , 
    904 N.W.2d 251
    (2017).
    10
    Id. 11
         Id.
    12
    
         Id.
    13
    
         Id.
    - 355 -
    
               Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    306 Nebraska Reports
    DOERR v. DOERR
    Cite as 
    306 Neb. 350
    segregated or is traceable into its product, commingling does
    not occur. 14
    Equity in Howard Street Home.
    In his first assignment of error, Brian argues that the district
    court erred in awarding Tammy roughly half of the equity
    in the Howard Street home, contending he proved at trial
    that he contributed all of the purchase price of the home. He
    also assigns that the district court erred in valuing the home
    at $350,000.
    We turn first to the value of the martial home as determined
    by the district court. The record includes numerous values for
    the home, but one of those values was $350,000, a value deter-
    mined by a real estate professional. The district court did not
    err in placing this value on the home.
    We turn next to Brian’s contention regarding Tammy’s
    equity in the home. Brian contends that he paid the $1,000
    “earnest deposit” on the residence and paid the entire $50,000
    downpayment. Brian further asserts that he sold his house in
    Fontanelle and that with those proceeds, he paid off the debt on
    the Howard Street home. Conversely, Tammy argues that she
    paid $40,000 of the downpayment for the Howard Street home
    with cash she had in her safe.
    The facts surrounding the Howard Street home are some-
    what complicated. The property was purchased by Brian in
    April 2012 for $262,000. At the closing, there was a balance
    due of $259,691.63, which credited the purchase price in vari-
    ous particulars, including an earnest payment of $1,000.
    There is nothing in the record to show how the funds at the
    closing of the Howard Street home were paid. Brian argues
    that he came up with $50,000—a combination of $10,000 cash
    and $40,000 from various other sources, including liquidating
    his son’s college savings plan and taking at least two with-
    drawals from his individual retirement account. Brian testified
    that this money was not so much a downpayment as funds that
    14
    Id. - 356 -
                 Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    306 Nebraska Reports
    DOERR v. DOERR
    Cite as 
    306 Neb. 350
    were owed because the house did not appraise out and the bank
    would not fund the entire purchase price.
    Brian offered into evidence statements showing the college
    savings plan and the individual retirement account transac-
    tions, as well as deposit slips he testified were for a combi-
    nation of cash and check deposits. Tammy relies on many
    of the same deposit slips to show that she had given Brian
    $40,000 to deposit in the bank. Tammy testified that she had
    this money prior to the marriage and even when she declared
    bankruptcy, but that she had not declared the money in the
    bankruptcy proceedings.
    The burden to show that the Howard Street home was
    paid for with proceeds from the Fontanelle home, and thus
    was Brian’s separate property, was on Brian. Brian offered
    documentation that certain deposits had been made in the time
    prior to the closing on the house. He also testified that the full
    amount of the money he deposited was his and that the money
    actually went to paying the downpayment on the Howard
    Street home.
    [10] Of course, a party’s testimony alone may sustain that
    party’s burden of proof. But a court is not bound to accept a
    party’s word in lieu of documentary evidence; a court is able
    to assess the credibility of the evidence presented to it and
    determine to what evidence to give weight. 15 In this case, the
    district court found Brian’s testimony and his accompany-
    ing documentary evidence not credible and therefore found that
    the Howard Street home was marital property. Accordingly,
    the district court awarded roughly half of the home’s
    equity to Tammy. We cannot find that this decision was an
    abuse of discretion. There is no merit to Brian’s first assign-
    ment of error.
    Bank Accounts.
    In his second and third assignments of error, Brian argues
    that the district court erred in its division of the parties’ bank
    15
    See Burgardt v. Burgardt, 
    304 Neb. 356
    , 
    934 N.W.2d 488
    (2019).
    - 357 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    306 Nebraska Reports
    DOERR v. DOERR
    Cite as 
    306 Neb. 350
    accounts. Most notably, Brian argues the district court erred
    in awarding Tammy $54,300, which he claims were proceeds
    from the sale of the Fontanelle house, and thus his separate
    property, that were deposited into the couple’s money mar-
    ket account.
    It is not disputed that Brian had proceeds of $187,399.82
    after the sale of the Fontanelle property. Brian maintains these
    proceeds were deposited into his checking account, less the
    payment of some taxes, and deposited into the couple’s money
    market account to be used only as a cushion for the couple’s
    checking account. Therefore, the proceeds are traceable and
    remain his separate property up to at least $117,000.
    There is nothing in the record to support Brian’s assertion
    that the money was transferred as he contends. According to
    the bank statement for January 4 to February 4, 2014, there
    was a beginning balance of $150,000.41 in the money market
    account. But those same records show that during the same
    statement period, $35,588.37 was deposited into that account.
    There is no indication that the account had not previously
    existed or that the proceeds of the sale of the Fontanelle house
    were $150,000.41. It is Brian’s burden to show that the funds
    were separate property. The district court concluded that he
    failed to do so, and we find no error in that conclusion.
    By extension, then, when Tammy emptied the money mar-
    ket account a few years later, she had a right to those funds.
    The district court did not err in awarding Tammy half of the
    $108,600 in her possession and in awarding the other half
    to Brian.
    In addition to the Union Bank account, Tammy had a
    separate checking account with U.S. Bank with a balance of
    approximately $12,831.67. Brian argues that he is entitled to
    one-half of that amount because Tammy did not prove it was
    her separate property.
    But Tammy did not argue it was her separate property. The
    district court awarded Tammy the accounts in her name and
    awarded Brian the accounts in his name. It was not error for
    - 358 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    306 Nebraska Reports
    DOERR v. DOERR
    Cite as 
    306 Neb. 350
    the court to award the accounts in this manner, and there is
    no merit to Brian’s second and third assignments of error.
    Debts.
    In his fourth assignment of error, Brian assigns that the
    district court erred by not equally dividing marital debt com-
    prising a U.S. Bank credit card balance of $6,439.76 and a
    bill for preseparation renovations for $9,768. There was docu-
    mentary evidence of these debts in the record; however, the
    district court simply ordered each party to pay all debts in that
    party’s name, as well as debts individually incurred by each
    since the filing of the divorce action. The court reasoned that
    it “cannot and will not account for which party paid for the
    butter or which party paid for the eggs during the course of
    the marriage.”
    The amount of debt at issue here is approximately $8,000.
    Even assuming that the court should have ordered Tammy to
    pay that portion of the debt, such would not make the district
    court’s division of property erroneous. The court’s reasoning
    that it was not going to parse out every purchase supports its
    conclusion. There is no merit to this assignment of error.
    Equalization Payment.
    Having concluded that the district court did not err in its
    division of the marital estate, we likewise find no merit to
    Brian’s contention that the amount of the equalization payment
    was in error. As such, there is no merit to Brian’s final assign-
    ment of error.
    CONCLUSION
    The decision of the district court is affirmed.
    Affirmed.