- 513 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

SNOW V. SNOW

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 513

Stephanie L. Snow, appellee, v. 

Ronald L. Snow, appellant.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed December 26, 2023. No. A-22-897.

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. Judges: Words and Phrases. A judicial abuse of discretion exists if the 

reasons or rulings 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. Divorce: Property Division: Equity. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (Reissue 

2016) authorizes a trial court to equitably distribute the marital estate 

according to what is fair and reasonable under the circumstances.

4. Divorce: Property Division. In a marital dissolution action, the purpose of a property division is to distribute the marital assets equitably 

between the parties.

5. ____: ____. In a marital dissolution action, there is no mathematical 

formula by which property awards can be precisely determined, but 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.

6. ____: ____. Generally, all property accumulated and acquired by either 

spouse during a marriage is part of the marital estate. Exceptions 

include property that a spouse acquired before the marriage, or by gift 

or inheritance.

7. Divorce: Property Division: Proof. The burden of proof rests with the 

party claiming that property is nonmarital.

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/

01/02/2024 08:04 AM CST
- 514 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

SNOW V. SNOW

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 513

8. Divorce: Property Division: Presumptions. Accrued investment earnings or appreciation of nonmarital assets during the marriage are presumed marital unless the party seeking the classification of the growth 

as nonmarital proves: (1) The growth is readily identifiable and traceable to the nonmarital portion of the account and (2) the growth is not 

due to the active efforts of either spouse.

9. Divorce: Property Division. The appreciation or income of a nonmarital asset during the marriage is marital insofar as it was caused by the 

efforts of either spouse or both spouses.

10. ____: ____. The active appreciation rule sets forth the relevant test to 

determine to what extent marital efforts caused any part of an asset’s 

appreciation or income.

11. Property Division: Words and Phrases. Appreciation caused by marital contributions is known as active appreciation, and it constitutes 

marital property.

12. ____: ____. Passive appreciation is appreciation caused by separate contributions and nonmarital forces.

13. Divorce: Property Division. Any given property can constitute a mixture of marital and nonmarital interests; a portion of an asset can be 

marital property while another portion can be separate property.

14. ____: ____. The original value of an asset may be nonmarital, while all 

or some portion of the appreciation of that asset may be marital.

15. ____: ____. The oft-cited three-step process of a marital property division must account for appreciation, which may be treated separately 

from the original capital or value of an asset.

16. ____: ____. In a marital dissolution action, the equitable division of 

property is a three-step process. The first step is to classify the parties’ 

property as either marital or nonmarital, setting aside the nonmarital 

property or nonmarital portion of the property to the party who brought 

the property to the marriage. The second step is to value the marital 

assets and marital liabilities of the parties. And the third step is to calculate and divide the net marital estate equitably between the parties.

17. ____: ____. The active appreciation rule applies to agricultural land 

or farmland.

18. ____: ____. The term “Grace award” has been described as a device to 

fairly and reasonably divide a marital estate where the prime asset in 

contention is one spouse’s gifted or inherited stock or property in a family agriculture organization.

19. Alimony. The purpose of alimony is to provide for the continued maintenance or support of one party by the other when the relative economic 

circumstances and the other criteria enumerated in Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§ 42-365 (Reissue 2016) make it appropriate.
- 515 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

SNOW V. SNOW

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 513

20. Alimony: Appeal and Error. In reviewing an alimony award, an appellate court does not determine whether it would have awarded the same 

amount of alimony as did the trial court, but whether the trial court’s 

award is untenable such as to deprive a party of a substantial right or 

just result.

21. Alimony. In determining whether alimony should be awarded, in what 

amount, and over what period of time, the ultimate criterion is one of 

reasonableness.

22. ____. There are four factors that are relevant to alimony: (1) the circumstances of the parties, (2) the duration of the marriage, (3) the history of 

contributions to the marriage, and (4) the ability of the supported party 

to engage in gainful employment without interfering with the interests of 

any minor children in the custody of each party.

23. ____. In determining whether alimony should be awarded, a court 

should consider the income and earning capacity of each party and the 

general equities of the situation.

24. ____. Alimony should not be used to equalize the incomes of the parties 

or punish one of the parties, but disparity in income or potential income 

may partially justify an award of alimony.

Appeal from the District Court for Adams County: Morgan 

R. Farquhar, Judge. Affirmed in part, and in part reversed and 

remanded with directions.

Adam R. Little, of Nebraska Legal Group, for appellant.

Jack W. Besse, of Parker, Grossart & Bahensky, L.L.P., for 

appellee.

Pirtle, Chief Judge, and Moore and Arterburn, Judges.

Pirtle, Chief Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

The district court for Adams County dissolved the marriage 

of Stephanie L. Snow and Ronald L. Snow and divided the 

parties’ property and debts. On appeal, Ronald challenges the 

district court’s division of property and its award of alimony 

to Stephanie. Based on the reasons that follow, we affirm in 

part, and in part reverse and remand with directions.
- 516 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

SNOW V. SNOW

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 513

II. BACKGROUND

Stephanie and Ronald were married in June 1981. They 

had two children who are no longer minors and, therefore, are 

not affected by these proceedings. When the parties married, 

Ronald was farming with his father, and they raised hogs. The 

farm ground was owned by Ronald’s parents. Stephanie testified that she worked on the farm and worked at the grain elevator during harvest time. Around 1985, Ronald and his father 

stopped farming. Ronald opened a mechanic shop located in 

a building on his parents’ land and Stephanie helped him in 

the shop. He had the shop for about 15 to 20 years, but it was 

never profitable.

Ronald’s father had an antique store that he started almost 

40 years prior to trial. The antique store was also located in a 

building on Ronald’s parents’ property. Stephanie helped with 

the store by arranging and displaying the antiques, as well as 

pricing the items. She would also go with Ronald’s father to 

auctions to purchase antiques for the store.

In the late 1980s, Stephanie opened her own business that 

repaired and restored wicker furniture. This business was also 

located on Ronald’s parents’ property.

In the mid-1990s, Stephanie started a residential and commercial cleaning business. At the time of trial, she was still 

running the cleaning business and it was her only source of 

income. She was earning $400 to $500 per week.

During the parties’ marriage, they lived in a home owned 

by Ronald’s parents and located on 10 acres of their property, 

referred to as “the cabin.”

In December 2006, Ronald’s parents titled two parcels of 

real property in Ronald’s name, reserving a life estate for 

themselves. The first parcel was 176 acres of cropland that 

was cash-rented by a third party. This parcel included the 

cabin; the house where Ronald’s parents lived; the buildings 

that housed the mechanic shop, the antique store, and the furniture repair business; and a building where Ronald’s father 

displayed his own antique collection. The second parcel was 
- 517 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

SNOW V. SNOW

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 513

57 acres that consisted primarily of pasture ground, which was 

also rented to a third party. Ronald’s mother died in 2016 and 

his father died in 2019, thereby ending the life estate.

Stephanie filed a complaint for dissolution of marriage in 

May 2021. Trial was held in September 2022. At the time of 

the trial, Stephanie was 60 years old and Ronald was 61 years 

old. Stephanie and Ronald both testified, as well as Michael 

Paul Wilken, a certified general appraiser.

Stephanie testified that since 2006, she had spent time and 

effort improving the cabin, as well as Ronald’s parents’ house. 

She testified that she installed ponds around the cabin, did 

landscaping, and remodeled Ronald’s parents’ bathroom. She 

also presented photographs indicating that she hand painted 

a ceiling and tiled the kitchen in the cabin. She also had a 

washhouse moved into the yard by the cabin and spent time 

fixing it up and decorating it. Stephanie also testified that 

after Ronald’s father died in 2019, she did other landscaping, 

including moving large rocks and planting flowers and bushes. 

She also repainted a fence. She believed that the improvements 

she made increased the value of the property at the time. She 

testified, however, that at the time of trial, the area around 

the cabin was covered in weeds and there was nothing left 

of the flowers and bushes she planted. Stephanie stated she 

did not want to be awarded the cabin because it needed too 

much work.

In January 2022, a broker from an auction and realty company conducted a broker price opinion of the cabin and the 

10 acres where it is located. The broker concluded that “[t]his 

10-acre parcel would carry as much or more value as a new 

build site versus evaluating the older house and garage as it is 

today and the cropland on a per-acre basis.” The broker opined 

that the value of the property at that time was $125,000 to 

$150,000. Stephanie agreed that the broker indicated that the 

ground itself was worth more than it was with the house as far 

as it being used as a new build site.
- 518 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

SNOW V. SNOW

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 513

Stephanie and Ronald agreed that Ronald’s father received 

the cash rent payments from the tenant farming the land 

until he died. After his father died, Ronald started receiving 

the cash rent payments, which totaled around $20,000 per 

year. Ronald testified that he had to pay around $10,000 in 

taxes each year, so he only received $10,000 in net income 

per year from cash renting the farm ground. Ronald’s other 

income of $2,200 per year came from renting the pasture 

ground. He testified that his monthly expenses total $2,859. 

He stated that he is “getting by,” but it is difficult to meet 

his monthly obligations based on his income. Robert testified 

that he would not be able to provide any financial support 

to Stephanie.

Ronald testified that the real property and the two houses 

located on the property gifted to him by his parents should 

all be classified as nonmarital property. He also testified that 

there had not been any substantial improvements made to the 

property or the houses. He contended that the antique store, 

the furniture repair business, and the mechanic shop were 

also nonmarital property. Ronald had no objection to treating 

Stephanie’s cleaning business as nonmarital and awarding it to 

her. There was also a small piece of land valued at $1,500 that 

Ronald’s father had purchased and gave to both Stephanie and 

Ronald. Ronald testified that Stephanie could have it.

Wilken testified regarding an appraisal he performed on 

the two parcels of land Ronald received from his parents. 

Ronald asked Wilken to complete an appraisal of the total 

property on two retroactive dates: January 7, 2019, the date 

Ronald’s father died and Ronald gained complete ownership 

of the property, and May 12, 2021, the date the complaint 

for dissolution was filed. In addition to the farm and pasture 

ground on the two parcels, the appraisal included Ronald’s 

parents’ former residence, which is where Ronald was living 

at the time, and the other buildings on the property. It did not 

include the cabin located on the 176-acre parcel.
- 519 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

SNOW V. SNOW

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 513

Wilken testified that he conducted his appraisal using three 

different methods of valuation: the sales comparison approach, 

the cost approach, and the income approach. He explained each 

method of valuation, and it was also set forth in his report, 

which was entered into evidence. He then reconciled those values as the most accurate way to value real estate. In utilizing 

this approach, he valued the real estate (both parcels minus the 

cabin) on January 7, 2019, at $860,000.

Wilken used the same process for May 12, 2021. His opinion as to the value of the real estate on May 12 was $950,000. 

Wilken testified that in his professional opinion, the $90,000 

in appreciation of value between the two dates was due 

entirely to external market forces. He stated that he was not 

given any information regarding any improvements that had 

been made and that based on his inspection of the property, 

it did not appear there had been any recent improvements on 

the property.

Following trial, the court entered a decree dissolving the 

parties’ marriage and dividing their assets and debts. Citing 

Grace v. Grace, 221 Neb. 695, 380 N.W.2d 280 (1986), the 

trial court found that Stephanie should receive some credit for 

the value of the real estate, which included the 1-acre tract 

given to Stephanie and Ronald by Ronald’s father and the 

two parcels gifted to Ronald by his parents. It stated that both 

personal and business property were comingled between the 

parties and Ronald’s parents for the length of the marriage. 

The court found that it was “impossible for [it] to unwind 

the comingling of land, homes, antiques, business assets, personal property, and farm real estate. There is no doubt that 

[Stephanie] contributed significantly to the various businesses 

engaged in by her nuclear family and her inlaws.” It awarded 

all real estate to Ronald and found that law and equity supported a finding that the cabin was a marital asset with a 

value of $163,870. The court concluded that because the cabin 

could not be partitioned from the remaining real estate, it 
- 520 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

SNOW V. SNOW

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 513

awarded an equalization payment to Stephanie by Ronald for 

half the value of the cabin, or $81,935.

The trial court further found that law and equity demanded 

an equalization of the other real estate and that a division based 

upon a percentage of value was appropriate. The court found 

that 25 percent of the value of the remaining real estate should 

be paid by Ronald to Stephanie. The court took the value of 

all the real estate, $946,500, and subtracted the value of the 

cabin, resulting in $782,630 as the value of the remaining 

real estate. It then calculated 25 percent of $782,630, which 

is $195,657.50. The two equalization payments in favor of 

Stephanie and against Ronald totaled $277,592.50 and were to 

be paid in 6 months. It also awarded Stephanie spousal support 

in the amount of $1,000 per month for 120 months, as well as 

attorney fees in the amount of $5,000.

III. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

Ronald assigns the trial court erred in (1) making an apparent “Grace award,” rather than setting aside premarital and 

nonmarital property; (2) failing to properly classify certain 

nonmarital assets; (3) including a marital value on nonmarital 

property, rather than setting it aside; (4) improperly valuing 

and dividing the marital estate; (5) ordering a “massive” cash 

equalization payment; and (6) awarding Stephanie alimony.

IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1,2] 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. 

Novotny v. Novotny, 32 Neb. App. 142, 995 N.W.2d 64 (2023). 

This standard of review applies to the trial court’s determinations regarding custody, child support, division of property, 

alimony, and attorney fees. Id. A judicial abuse of discretion 

exists if the reasons or rulings of a trial judge are clearly untenable, unfairly depriving a litigant of a substantial right and 

denying just results in matters submitted for disposition. Id.
- 521 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

SNOW V. SNOW

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 513

V. ANALYSIS

1. Relevant Law Regarding Division 

of Marital Estate

[3-5] Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (Reissue 2016) authorizes a 

trial court to equitably distribute the marital estate according to 

what is fair and reasonable under the circumstances. Parde v. 

Parde, 313 Neb. 779, 986 N.W.2d 504 (2023). In a marital dissolution action, the purpose of a property division is to distribute the marital assets equitably between the parties. Id. There 

is no mathematical formula by which property awards can be 

precisely determined, but 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. Id.

[6,7] Generally, all property accumulated and acquired by 

either spouse during a marriage is part of the marital estate. 

Novotny v. Novotny, supra. Exceptions include property that a 

spouse acquired before the marriage, or by gift or inheritance. 

Id. The burden of proof rests with the party claiming that property is nonmarital. Id.

[8] In Stephens v. Stephens, 297 Neb. 188, 899 N.W.2d 

582 (2017), the Nebraska Supreme Court held that accrued 

investment earnings or appreciation of nonmarital assets during the marriage are presumed marital unless the party seeking 

the classification of the growth as nonmarital proves: (1) The 

growth is readily identifiable and traceable to the nonmarital 

portion of the account and (2) the growth is not due to the 

active efforts of either spouse.

[9] Prior to the decision in Stephens, the Nebraska appellate courts treated separate property as remaining nonmarital 

unless both spouses contributed to the improvement or operation of the property or the spouse not owning the property, 

or not receiving the inheritance or gift, significantly cared 

for the property during the marriage. See Parde v. Parde, 

supra. But in Stephens, the court held that the appreciation or 

income of a nonmarital asset during the marriage is marital 
- 522 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

SNOW V. SNOW

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 513

insofar as it was caused by the efforts of either spouse or both 

spouses. See Parde v. Parde, supra.

[10-12] The active appreciation rule sets forth the relevant 

test to determine to what extent marital efforts caused any part 

of an asset’s appreciation or income. Id. Appreciation caused 

by marital contributions is known as active appreciation, and 

it constitutes marital property. Id. Passive appreciation is 

appreciation caused by separate contributions and nonmarital 

forces. Id.

[13,14] After Stephens, appellate courts have adhered to the 

framework that any given property can constitute a mixture of 

marital and nonmarital interests; a portion of an asset can be 

marital property while another portion can be separate property. See Parde v. Parde, supra. The original value of an asset 

may be nonmarital, while all or some portion of the appreciation of that asset may be marital. Id.

[15,16] The oft-cited three-step process of a marital property division must account for appreciation, which may be 

treated separately from the original capital or value of an 

asset. Id. Thus, in a marital dissolution action, the equitable 

division of property is a three-step process. The first step is to 

classify the parties’ property as either marital or nonmarital, 

setting aside the nonmarital property or nonmarital portion 

of the property to the party who brought the property to the 

marriage. The second step is to value the marital assets and 

marital liabilities of the parties. And the third step is to calculate and divide the net marital estate equitably between the 

parties. Id.

[17] In Parde v. Parde, 313 Neb. 779, 986 N.W.2d 504 

(2023), the court determined that the active appreciation rule 

applied to agricultural land or farmland.

2. Equitable Lump-Sum Awards

In the present case, Ronald was gifted two parcels of land 

from his parents. One parcel was 176 acres of primarily 

cropland, but it also contained the cabin, the house where 
- 523 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

SNOW V. SNOW

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 513

Ronald’s parents lived, and the buildings that housed the 

mechanic shop, antique store, wicker repair business, and 

Ronald’s father’s antique collection. The other parcel was 57 

acres of pasture ground.

In evaluating the marital estate, the trial court treated the 

cabin separately from the rest of the property and buildings. 

It determined that the cabin was a marital asset and awarded 

Stephanie 50 percent of the value of the cabin. The court also 

awarded Stephanie 25 percent of the value of the remaining 

real estate.

[18] Ronald argues that the trial court erred in its division 

of property because it gave Stephanie an equitable lump-sum 

award or a “Grace award.” A “Grace award” became a common term of art in dissolution cases, particularly involving 

farms and ranches, and derived from the Supreme Court’s 

opinion in Grace v. Grace, 221 Neb. 695, 380 N.W.2d 280 

(1986). A Grace award has been described as a device to 

fairly and reasonably divide a marital estate where the prime 

asset in contention is one spouse’s gifted or inherited stock 

or property in a family agriculture organization. See Charron 

v. Charron, 16 Neb. App. 724, 751 N.W.2d 645 (2008). The 

Supreme Court expressly abrogated Grace v. Grace, supra, 

and its related line of cases in Stephens v. Stephens, 297 Neb. 

188, 899 N.W.2d 582 (2017).

The Stephens court explained that it found inapplicable to 

the modern dual classification system any statements in prior 

cases that failed to recognize as a marital asset appreciation 

through the active efforts of the owning spouse. It further 

stated that for purposes of the active appreciation rule, there 

was no reason to treat appreciation of a nonmarital asset differently from income derived from a nonmarital asset during the 

marriage. It concluded that the principles set forth in Grace v. 

Grace, supra, were no longer applicable under the dual classification system.

We conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in 

awarding Stephanie an equitable lump sum, or Grace award, 
- 524 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

SNOW V. SNOW

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 513

rather than setting aside nonmarital property and applying the 

active appreciation rule. Ronald argues that under the proper 

analysis, he met his burden to show that the real property 

gifted to him was nonmarital and that any growth or appreciation was passive and, therefore, nonmarital. We agree.

The evidence showed that the property at issue was gifted 

to Ronald by his parents. In 2006, Ronald’s parents transferred title to two parcels of land to Ronald but maintained a 

life estate so they could continue to live on the property and 

receive the cash rent from the tenants farming the land and 

using the pastures. Stephanie testified that when the land was 

deeded to Ronald, she understood that it was a gift made specifically to him. Accordingly, the evidence is undisputed that 

the property was gifted to Ronald by his parents, making it 

nonmarital property that should be set aside to Ronald.

We must next determine whether any appreciation of the 

property after it was gifted to Ronald was active or passive and, therefore, whether the appreciation was marital or 

nonmarital.

Ronald presented evidence from a certified general appraiser 

regarding the appraised value of the property on two different 

dates: January 7, 2019, the day Ronald fully inherited the 

property, and May 12, 2021, the day the complaint for dissolution was filed and the parties separated. Wilken valued 

the property at $860,000 as of January 7, 2019, and $950,000 

as of May 12, 2021. Wilken testified that in his professional 

opinion, the $90,000 in appreciation of value between the 

two dates was due entirely to external market forces. We 

conclude that Ronald met his burden of proof to show that 

the appreciation in value of the nonmarital real property was 

entirely passive.

It then became Stephanie’s burden to rebut Ronald’s evidence that the appreciation of his nonmarital real property 

was passive. She failed to do so. Stephanie did not present 

evidence to rebut Ronald’s appraised value of the property on 

either date. She presented limited evidence of improvements 
- 525 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

SNOW V. SNOW

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 513

she made over time and argued they increased the value, but 

the improvements were primarily made inside and around the 

cabin and do not meet the definition of active marital appreciation. Further, Wilken’s appraisal did not include the cabin.

Stephanie also argues that in determining the appreciation 

in value of the property, it should be assessed as of December 

12, 2006, the day the property was deeded to Ronald, rather 

than January 7, 2019, when his father died. She contends that 

while Ronald’s father’s death ended the life estate, Ronald was 

given an interest in the property on December 12, 2006.

Although Ronald’s name was put on the title in 2006 and 

he received an interest in the property at this time, he did not 

inherit or receive the ground free and clear until 2019, when 

his father died. Before his parents died, they maintained a 

life estate on the property, including full rights to occupy 

the property and rights to receive income from the property. 

Further, Ronald did not pay inheritance tax on the property 

until 2019, after his father’s death.

In addition, there is no evidence that any appreciation in 

the property between 2006 and 2019 was caused by the active 

efforts of either spouse. Ronald and his father stopped farming in 1985. After that, the farm ground was rented by a third 

party. The pasture ground was also rented by a third party. 

There was no evidence that any of the businesses that were 

operated on the property contributed to any appreciation in the 

property. As a result, any appreciation in value to the property 

between 2006 and 2019 was passive.

We conclude that the district court erred in awarding 

Stephanie a Grace award, specifically, an equitable lump-sum 

award equal to 25 percent of value of the real estate. While 

we recognize that application of the active appreciation rule 

to the facts of this case produces what could be viewed as an 

inequitable division of property, particularly given the length 

of time Stephanie lived on the property, the pertinent case law 

does not provide for any exceptions to the rule’s application. 

Here, the evidence is clear that the appreciation in value was 
- 526 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

SNOW V. SNOW

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 513

due to external market forces and not to any significant efforts 

by either party. The real estate consisting of the two parcels 

Ronald was gifted by his parents and its passive appreciation 

should have been set off to Ronald as nonmarital property and 

not included in the marital estate. We reverse that portion of 

the court’s decree awarding Stephanie $195,657.50 and remand 

the matter to the district court for a division of the marital 

estate, setting off the two parcels of real estate and its appreciation to Ronald as nonmarital property.

3. Classification of Certain Assets

Ronald next assigns that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to properly classify certain assets as nonmarital assets.

(a) Inherited Real Property

Ronald first argues that the trial court erred in failing to 

classify and set aside the real property he was gifted as his 

nonmarital property. As set forth above, Ronald proved, and 

Stephanie did not dispute, that Ronald’s parents gifted the 

property at issue to Ronald. The property should have been 

classified as nonmarital property.

(b) The Cabin

The trial court found the cabin was a marital asset with 

a value of $163,870 and awarded Stephanie an equalization 

payment equal to half the value of the cabin, or $81,935. The 

court’s value of the cabin was based on its insured value as of 

June 2022. Ronald argues that the cabin was part of the total 

real property he was gifted and should not have been treated 

separately or classified as a marital asset. We agree.

The cabin is located on the property Ronald was gifted and, 

therefore, is part of the nonmarital property. Although the parties lived in the cabin for most of their marriage, it was owned 

by Ronald’s parents until it was gifted with the property to 

Ronald. There was no mortgage on the cabin and no evidence 

that the parties paid any rent. We conclude that the trial court 
- 527 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

SNOW V. SNOW

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 513

erred in classifying the cabin as a marital asset and awarding 

Stephanie an equalization payment equal to one-half of the 

value. Upon remand, the trial court is to treat the cabin as part 

of Ronald’s nonmarital property.

(c) Miscellaneous Assets

Ronald next argues that other various assets were classified as marital when they should have been classified as nonmarital. The district court attached a “Settlement Statement” 

to the decree, which is a spreadsheet detailing how it valued 

and awarded the parties’ assets and debts. Ronald points out 

several items that he claims were undisputedly nonmarital, 

yet the court listed them on the spreadsheet and awarded them 

to Ronald.

The court’s spreadsheet states a value for each asset or 

debt and which party is to receive each item. It does not indicate whether the court found that all the items listed on the 

spreadsheet are marital or whether some of the items awarded 

to Ronald were nonmarital. Further, although the spreadsheet 

assigns values to the assets and debts, it does not calculate the 

division of the marital estate. In other words, it does not contain a balance sheet showing the total value of marital assets 

and debts each party was awarded, or a division of the net 

marital estate.

Upon remand, the district court is ordered to use the threestep process set forth above to classify the parties’ property as 

marital or nonmarital, setting aside Ronald’s nonmarital real 

property and appreciation; to produce a balance sheet valuing 

the marital assets and liabilities; and to calculate and divide 

the net marital estate equitably. See Parde v. Parde, 313 Neb. 

779, 986 N.W.2d 504 (2023).

4. Valuation and Division 

of Marital Estate

Ronald next assigns that the trial court abused its discretion in valuing and dividing the marital estate. He argues that 

the court “incons[iste]ntly or arbitrarily valued several items 
- 528 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

SNOW V. SNOW

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 513

of marital property.” Brief for appellant at 26. He suggests 

that the court adopted Stephanie’s inflated valuations only on 

property that was awarded to Ronald, despite Ronald’s testifying he did not want such property at Stephanie’s values. In 

contrast, when awarding property to Stephanie, the court often 

gave her the benefit. This argument is also based on the court’s 

“Settlement Statement” attached to the decree, as discussed 

above. As stated above, upon remand, the district court is to 

produce a balance sheet dividing the parties’ assets and debts 

and calculating any equalization payment needed.

5. Equalization Payment

Ronald assigns that ordering him to pay an equalization 

payment of $277,592.50 was an abuse of discretion because he 

lacks sufficient cash or liquid assets to make the equalization 

payment. Because the trial court abused its discretion in the 

method used to divide the marital estate and we are remanding 

the matter to the trial court, we need not address this assignment of error.

6. Alimony

Ronald also assigns that the trial court erred in awarding Stephanie alimony. He argues that the alimony award of 

$1,000 per month for 120 months is “untenable and deprives 

[him] of a substantial right” because there was no evidence 

demonstrating Stephanie had a need for support. Brief for 

appellant at 29.

[19,20] The purpose of alimony is to provide for the continued maintenance or support of one party by the other when the 

relative economic circumstances and the other criteria enumerated in § 42-365 make it appropriate. See Dooling v. Dooling, 

303 Neb. 494, 930 N.W.2d 481 (2019). In reviewing an alimony award, an appellate court does not determine whether it 

would have awarded the same amount of alimony as did the 

trial court, but whether the trial court’s award is untenable such 

as to deprive a party of a substantial right or just result. Id.
- 529 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

SNOW V. SNOW

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 513

[21-24] In determining whether alimony should be awarded, 

in what amount, and over what period of time, the ultimate 

criterion is one of reasonableness. See id. There are four factors that are relevant to alimony: (1) the circumstances of the 

parties, (2) the duration of the marriage, (3) the history of contributions to the marriage, and (4) the ability of the supported 

party to engage in gainful employment without interfering with 

the interests of any minor children in the custody of each party. 

Simons v. Simons, 312 Neb. 136, 978 N.W.2d 121 (2022). 

In addition, a court should consider the income and earning 

capacity of each party and the general equities of the situation. 

See id. Alimony should not be used to equalize the incomes 

of the parties or punish one of the parties, but disparity in 

income or potential income may partially justify an award of 

alimony. See Marcovitz v. Rogers, 267 Neb. 456, 675 N.W.2d 

132 (2004).

In considering the four factors set forth above, Ronald was 

61 years old at the time of trial and Stephanie was 60 years 

old. The parties had been married for 41 years. Ronald earns 

his income by renting the farm ground and pasture ground 

that he inherited from his parents. Although he presented evidence to show that he struggles “to meet [his] monthly obligations,” he does not work and there was nothing to indicate he 

cannot work. During the marriage, there were three businesses 

operated on his inherited land, but at the time of trial, he was 

not operating any of these businesses.

During the marriage, Stephanie worked on the farm and at 

the grain elevator during harvest time, helped Ronald’s father 

operate the antique store, and ran the wicker furniture repair 

business. At the time of trial, Stephanie had her own cleaning 

business. She testified that she was able to pay her expenses 

with her current income but struggled at times. She did not 

produce evidence that she needed to or would pursue further 

education to improve her employment prospects, nor did she 

produce evidence that her income was lower due to career 

interruptions during the marriage.
- 530 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

SNOW V. SNOW

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 513

Based on the totality of the evidence before us, the trial 

court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Stephanie alimony. This assignment of error fails.

VI. CONCLUSION

We conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in its 

division of the marital estate. We remand the matter to the 

trial court to recalculate and divide the marital estate consistent with this opinion. The court’s award of alimony to 

Stephanie is affirmed.

Affirmed in part, and in part reversed 

and remanded with directions.