Opinion ID: 4486787
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: analysis

Text: 1. Foundational Principles We begin by recalling three foundational principles that, along with the standard of review, guide our decision. [5] The first principle is the burden of proof imposed in this case. In the realm of factfinding, the function of a standard of proof is to instruct the fact finder concerning the degree of confidence our society thinks he or she should have in the correctness of factual conclusions for a particular type of adjudication.7 Unless an exception applies, the burden of proof in civil cases requires only the greater weight of the evidence.8 The greater weight of the evidence means evidence sufficient to make a claim more likely true than not true.9 That burden of proof applies here. [6,7] Second, we are mindful that there is no hierarchy of evidence. “‘[T]here is no general rule of evidence that a party must produce the best evidence which the nature of the case permits.’”10 A witness’ testimony, like a document, is a kind of evidence.11 A trial court weighs the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence and determines what evidence should be given the greater weight in arriving at a factual determination on the merits.12 In doing so, a trial court may choose to accord greater weight to a document. Given the frailties of memories, documentary evidence relating to a long past event and 7 See In re Interest of Christopher T., 281 Neb. 1008, 801 N.W.2d 243 (2011). 8 See, In re Application No. OP-0003, 303 Neb. 872, 932 N.W.2d 653 (2019); Flores v. Flores-Guerrero, 290 Neb. 248, 859 N.W.2d 578 (2015). 9 Flores v. Flores-Guerrero, supra note 8. 10 Equitable Life v. Starr, 241 Neb. 609, 615, 489 N.W.2d 857, 862 (1992), quoting Michael H. Graham, Handbook of Federal Evidence § 1001.0 (3d ed. 1991). 11 See Columbia Nat. Bank v. German Nat. Bank, 56 Neb. 803, 77 N.W. 346 (1898). 12 Lockwood v. Lockwood, 205 Neb. 818, 290 N.W.2d 636 (1980). - 363 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 304 Nebraska R eports BURGARDT v. BURGARDT Cite as 304 Neb. 356 prepared by one not affected by it may be entitled to greater consideration than oral testimony.13 Ordinarily, a contemporaneous memorandum of an event is entitled to greater evidentiary weight than another recollection of it.14 But it does not follow that where there is no documentary evidence, a party’s testimony alone cannot satisfy a burden of proof. [8-11] Third, it is well settled that the first step in the equitable division of property is to classify the parties’ property as marital or nonmarital, setting aside the nonmarital property to the party who brought that property to the marriage.15 Contributions to retirement accounts before marriage are not assets of the marital estate.16 Gifts and inheritances, even when received during the marriage, are presumed to be nonmarital.17 In a marital dissolution proceeding, the burden of proof rests with the party claiming that property is nonmarital.18 With these principles in mind, we turn to the two imperatives upon which the Court of Appeals relied. 2. Necessity of Documentary Evidence Although the district court accepted Harlan’s testimony as sufficient to establish portions of the property as nonmarital, the Court of Appeals rejected Harlan’s claims solely on the basis that he lacked documentation. Regarding the 401K, the Court of Appeals stated: The problem with Harlan’s claim is that it is based solely on his own recol­lection. Harlan failed to adduce any documentation whatsoever regarding when the 401K came into existence, what contribu­tions were made to it 13 See 32A C.J.S. Evidence § 1286 (2008). 14 Id. 15 See Rohde v. Rohde, 303 Neb. 85, 927 N.W.2d 37 (2019). 16 See Lorenzen v. Lorenzen, 294 Neb. 204, 883 N.W.2d 292 (2016). 17 Westwood v. Darnell, 299 Neb. 612, 909 N.W.2d 645 (2018). 18 Rohde v. Rohde, supra note 15. - 364 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 304 Nebraska R eports BURGARDT v. BURGARDT Cite as 304 Neb. 356 by him or his employer, and how it was invested or grew over the years.19 The Court of Appeals recognized that Harlan tried to obtain records to demonstrate the value of his 401K in 1992, but could not do so because his former employer did not maintain those records. The Court of Appeals then suggested a number of other records that perhaps Harlan could have obtained. It found that the trial court erred in setting off $130,000 to Harlan “based solely on his testimony.”20 And with regard to the inheritance, the Court of Appeals noted that Harlan presented documentation to support his claim that he received an inheritance, but that he “presented no documentation which in any way establishes or corroborates the amount of that inheritance.”21 In effect, the Court of Appeals held that Harlan’s testimony could not be accepted without documentary support. That goes too far. [12,13] A nonmarital interest in property may be established by credible testimony.22 In Brozek v. Brozek,23 we recognized that a spouse’s own testimony can establish a “‘tracing link,’” i.e., tracking an asset to a nonmarital source. Of course, triers of fact have the right to test the credibility of witnesses by their self-interest and to weigh it against the evidence, or the lack thereof.24 Evidence not directly contradicted is not necessarily binding on the triers of fact, and may be given no weight where it is inherently improbable, unreasonable, self-contradictory, or inconsistent with facts or circumstances in evidence.25 We 19 Burgardt v. Burgardt, supra note 1, 27 Neb. App. at 65, 926 N.W.2d at 460. 20 Id. at 67, 926 N.W.2d at 461. 21 Id. at 68, 926 N.W.2d at 462. 22 See Kerr v. Kerr, 770 N.W.2d 567 (Minn. App. 2009). 23 Brozek v. Brozek, 292 Neb. 681, 701, 874 N.W.2d 17, 32 (2016). 24 State on behalf of Mariah B. & Renee B. v. Kyle B., 298 Neb. 759, 906 N.W.2d 17 (2018). 25 Fredericks Peebles v. Assam, 300 Neb. 670, 915 N.W.2d 770 (2018). - 365 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 304 Nebraska R eports BURGARDT v. BURGARDT Cite as 304 Neb. 356 acknowledged in Brozek that the trial court was “entitled to discount [the husband’s] testimony about [an alleged premarital asset] because of his admitted uncertainty.”26 While documentary evidence may be more persuasive, it is not absolutely required. In a case where the husband did not produce bank statements proving the premarital balance of his bank accounts but the wife did not contest the values he listed on a joint property statement, we found an abuse of discretion by the trial court in failing to set off the value of premarital bank accounts.27 In Onstot v. Onstot,28 we affirmed the trial court’s decision to not grant the husband credit for the value of a premarital house at the time of marriage, stating that “assuming [the husband’s] testimony established the value of the residence at $100,000 at the time of the marriage, he did not testify or supply any documentation as to whether the residence was either encumbered or unencumbered at that time and, if encumbered, to what extent.” This statement implies that premarital equity could have been established by testimony alone. In a case where undisputed testimony established items as premarital, the Court of Appeals determined that the trial court erred in classifying the items as marital property.29 Of course, a party opting to rely upon his or her testimony alone does so at the risk of nonpersuasion. In a case where the trial court set aside the total amount of premarital funds that the husband claimed he used to purchase property, we reduced the amount of the set aside—even though the husband’s testimony was uncontradicted—because there was nothing in the record to show the source of certain funds.30 In Brozek, we affirmed the trial court’s decision declining to set off any amount to the 26 Brozek v. Brozek, supra note 23, 292 Neb. at 701, 874 N.W.2d at 32. 27 See Osantowski v. Osantowski, supra note 2. 28 Onstot v. Onstot, 298 Neb. 897, 904, 906 N.W.2d 300, 306 (2018) (emphasis supplied). 29 See Schmeidler v. Schmeidler, 25 Neb. App. 802, 912 N.W.2d 278 (2018). 30 See Frost v. Frost, 227 Neb. 414, 418 N.W.2d 220 (1988). - 366 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 304 Nebraska R eports BURGARDT v. BURGARDT Cite as 304 Neb. 356 husband for the premarital portion of two checking accounts (he testified one account had about $79,000 at the time of marriage), crops from a 1993 harvest, and machinery owned at the time of marriage (but later sold or traded).31 A party seeking recognition of nonmarital property may find it easier to meet his or her burden of persuasion with documentary support. But its absence does not automatically defeat the claim. 3. Definitively Proved The Court of Appeals also determined that Harlan “failed to meet his burden of proof to definitively identify the value of his claimed premarital asset.”32 “Definitively” means “[s]o as to decide or settle the matter; decisively, conclusively, finally, definitely.”33 In doing so, the Court of Appeals misread our decision in Brozek. The Court of Appeals stated that we “reversed the trial court judgment, finding that the husband had not definitively identified the values of his premarital assets.”34 We did neither. Rather, we affirmed the trial court’s judgment, concluding, as did the trial court, that the husband failed to trace the value of property alleged to be premarital. We stated that he did “not identify the different permutations that his premarital property underwent during the marriage” and that “we cannot follow the threads in the hodgepodge of figures.”35 [14] It is axiomatic that an item must be identified in order to be set off as nonmarital. But its value need not be definitively or conclusively proved; the greater weight of the 31 Brozek v. Brozek, supra note 23. 32 Burgardt v. Burgardt, supra note 1, 27 Neb. App. at 68, 926 N.W.2d at 462 (emphasis supplied). 33 “Definitively,” Oxford English Dictionary Online, http://www.oed.com/ view/Entry/4889 (last visited Sept. 24, 2019). 34 Burgardt v. Burgardt, supra note 1, 27 Neb. App. at 66, 926 N.W.2d at 461. 35 Brozek v. Brozek, supra note 23, 292 Neb. at 699, 874 N.W.2d at 31. - 367 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 304 Nebraska R eports BURGARDT v. BURGARDT Cite as 304 Neb. 356 evidence is sufficient. In other words, the value of the nonmarital portion of an asset must be established by the greater weight of the evidence. 4. R esolution In summary, we reject the Court of Appeals’ articulations that documentary evidence is necessary to establish a claim to nonmarital property and that a nonmarital value must be proved “definitively.” While Harlan had the burden of persuading the district court of the nonmarital character of the property and its value, he succeeded in doing so. On appeal, our standard of review governs. And here, it is important to recognize that the district court heard and observed the witnesses and accepted one version of the facts rather than another. As we have said, this court is not inclined to disturb the division of property made by the trial court unless it is patently unfair on the record.36 The district court set off to Harlan $130,000 as the nonmarital value of his 401K and $60,000 as the nonmarital value of his inherited share of the home farm. Evidence supports the court’s award. Harlan testified that his 401K was valued at $130,000 at the time of marriage. When asked, “Are you aware of any kind of 401-K Harlan had before marriage worth $130,000,” Shirley responded, “No.” But on cross-­ examination, she admitted she had no evidence to dispute that Harlan contributed to the 401K prior to marriage. Harlan testified that his inherited share of his father’s farm was worth $60,000, and Shirley did not dispute this. This was not a situation where the trial court rejected a party’s unsupported testimony and, in affirming, an appellate court noted the lack of documentary evidence. Here, the district court evidently found Harlan’s testimony to be credible and set off the amounts claimed as nonmarital. Upon our de novo review, we cannot say it abused its discretion in doing so. 36 Tavlin v. Tavlin, 194 Neb. 98, 230 N.W.2d 108 (1975). - 368 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 304 Nebraska R eports BURGARDT v. BURGARDT Cite as 304 Neb. 356