Nebraska Divorce and Property Division: What Stava v. Stava and Stephens v. Stephens Mean for Premarital Property

Family law, and particularly property division in divorce, can be one of the most intricate areas of legal practice. While many divorces settle before ever reaching a trial or appellate court, those that do end up in higher courts frequently develop or refine important legal principles. Two Nebraska Supreme Court decisions address how premarital property and its growth in value are classified in a divorce:

1. Stava v. Stava
2. Stephens v. Stephens

These cases address nuanced questions: How do courts differentiate between “marital” and “nonmarital” property? What happens when one spouse brings certain property into the marriage, and marital funds later enhance that property’s value or equity?

Below, we examine both decisions, explore how Nebraska courts tackle this classification process, and discuss the legal doctrines that emerged.

Nebraska Divorce and Property Division: What Stava v. Stava and Stephens v. Stephens Mean for Premarital Property

Background: Nebraska’s General Approach to Property Division

Before jumping into the specifics of Stava v. Stava and Stephens v. Stephens, it helps to understand Nebraska’s broader approach to property division in divorce. Under Nebraska law, courts aim to equitably divide the marital estate. Nebraska Statute § 42-365 provides that in making a division of property, courts consider factors such as:

• The circumstances of the parties,
• The duration of the marriage,
• The history of contributions by each spouse (including both financial and non-financial contributions), and
• The goal of achieving a fair, equitable result.

Generally, all property accumulated by either spouse during the marriage is deemed “marital property,” while assets acquired by a spouse before marriage or by inheritance or gift (to one spouse individually) are deemed “nonmarital property.” Once these determinations are made, the court places values on the marital assets, assigns debts, and works to divide the net marital estate, often awarding each spouse roughly one-third to one-half of the total, subject to adjustments for fairness.

Stephens v. Stephens (2017)

Facts and Procedural History

In Stephens v. Stephens, 297 Neb. 188, 899 N.W.2d 582 (2017), the Nebraska Supreme Court clarified how courts should analyze the classification of property that has both marital and nonmarital characteristics. The parties were married for about 25 years. Before the marriage, the husband cofounded a construction company and owned 34 percent of its stock. That interest was worth $298,459 when the parties married and about $5.04 million at dissolution. The district court treated all of the appreciation as the husband’s nonmarital property because the wife had not contributed to the business, and it made a separate $1.1 million award to her under Grace v. Grace. On appeal, the wife challenged the classification of that appreciation. Stephens, 297 Neb. at 190-91, 196-98.

Key Legal Concepts in Stephens

1. The Active Appreciation Rule

Stephens expressly adopted the active appreciation rule. Appreciation or income of a nonmarital asset during the marriage is marital to the extent it was caused by the efforts of either spouse, including the spouse who owns the asset. The court disapproved earlier statements suggesting that only the nonowning spouse’s efforts count, and it held that Grace awards no longer apply under Nebraska’s dual classification system. 297 Neb. at 205-06. (A separate doctrine, transmutation by commingling, can convert an entire asset to marital property when separate property is inextricably mixed with marital property. Stava, 318 Neb. at 43.)

2. Active vs. Passive Appreciation

The Nebraska Supreme Court has, in many decisions, differentiated between active and passive appreciation.

• Active appreciation means an increase in value resulting from marital contributions: financial investments, improvements, personal efforts, or other ways the spouses actively enhance the asset’s worth. This type of appreciation is typically considered marital because it arises from marital labor or marital funds.
• Passive appreciation, on the other hand, results from external factors such as market forces or inflation. If the underlying asset is entirely nonmarital and remains separate, purely passive appreciation will generally stay with the original owner.

3. Burden of Proof

In Stephens, the court reiterated that the burden of proof rests on the party who claims a certain asset or portion of an asset is nonmarital. Growth in a nonmarital asset during the marriage is presumed marital unless the owning spouse proves that the growth is readily identifiable and traceable to the nonmarital portion and that it is not due to the active efforts of either spouse. 297 Neb. at 205-06. In Stephens, the husband did not carry that burden, and the court directed that the entire increase in value of his stock interest during the marriage be treated as marital. Id. at 208-09.

Importance of Stephens v. Stephens

Stephens solidified several guiding principles for Nebraska practitioners and litigants in divorce cases. Chief among them is the importance of meticulous record-keeping. When spouses claim that property (or part of an asset’s value) is separate, they bear the burden of tracing its history. Failing to present that evidence can result in the growth during the marriage being classified as marital.
Moreover, Stephens underscores the court’s focus on whether enhancements or increases in value came from marital funds or efforts. If they did, that growth is typically shared. If they did not, and the asset was neither commingled nor used in a way that transmuted it, the growth often remains separate.

Stava v. Stava (2024)

Facts and Procedural Background

More recently, the Nebraska Supreme Court addressed similar issues but added a critical new dimension in Stava v. Stava, 318 Neb. 32 (2024). This case involved a couple married for about 18 years. The husband had purchased two adjacent lots (Lot 14 and Lot 15) before the marriage. Over time, these properties became encumbered by loans on which both spouses were borrowers, and crucially, marital funds were used to pay down the principal balances.

1. Lot 14 (Marital Residence)

• Before the marriage, the husband purchased the lot, built a residence, and had a mortgage.
• At marriage, there was equity already in the property, theoretically belonging to the husband as nonmarital.
• After the marriage, marital funds paid $84,620 of the principal, and the loan was refinanced in 2003 with both spouses as borrowers. Stava, 318 Neb. at 35.

2. Lot 15 (Barn and Business)

• Lot 15 was purchased by the husband before the marriage.
• Even so, the parties financed construction of a barn on the property together (with both spouses as borrowers), and they used the property for the wife’s horse training business.
• Marital funds paid $25,631 of the barn loan principal, and the husband paid the remaining $137,701 from an inheritance. Stava, 318 Neb. at 36-37.

Both properties appreciated substantially during the marriage, and the courts found that appreciation was due to passive market forces. Stava, 318 Neb. at 35-37, 49. The trial court initially treated most of this real estate as the husband’s nonmarital property, awarding the wife some compensation but leaving the husband with the bulk of the increased property value.

The Source of Funds Rule

On further review, the Nebraska Supreme Court expressly adopted the “source of funds” rule, which it described as the majority rule, while noting that the rule’s principles align with its earlier case law. Stava, 318 Neb. at 43-44, 47, 49.

• Under the source of funds rule, acquisition of encumbered property happens when and to the extent the mortgage principal is paid off. If that payoff comes from marital funds (earnings, joint accounts, etc.), then the marital estate acquires an interest in the property proportionate to those contributions.
• Moreover, passive appreciation attaches to each respective interest in proportion to its share of the total contributions. Thus, when a nonmarital property sees its mortgage gradually paid down with marital funds, the marital estate is entitled not only to the principal paydown but also to an appropriate share of any passive appreciation on that newly created marital equity.

Why Stava Is Important

1. Mathematical Framework: The court adopted a formula, marital interest equals value multiplied by marital contributions divided by total contributions, and recognized that the formula may not be the only method in every case. Stava, 318 Neb. at 45-47, 49.
2. No More Merely Refunding Principal: The trial court in Stava refunded half of the marital principal payments and left all passive appreciation with the owning spouse. Stava, 318 Neb. at 38. Stava clarifies that if the property has appreciated, whether passively or actively, the marital share of that equity appreciates proportionately.
3. Consistency with Other Jurisdictions: The court described the source of funds rule as the majority rule. In the 2026 appeal, it rejected the argument that the 2024 decision marked new law in Nebraska. Stava, 318 Neb. at 43-44; Stava, 321 Neb. at 896.

Update: Stava v. Stava (2026)

In July 2026, the Nebraska Supreme Court decided a second appeal in the same case. Stava v. Stava, 321 Neb. 886 (2026). The court confirmed that the source of funds rule adopted in Stava v. Stava, 318 Neb. 32 (2024), is a tool for classifying an asset that is part marital and part nonmarital. The rule does not dictate how the marital estate is ultimately divided. 321 Neb. at 900. A court may apply it when the evidence establishes at least three variables: the value of the asset, the marital contributions to it, and the separate contributions to it. Id. at 900-01. The court also rejected the argument that the 2024 decision announced new law, observing that it had previously expressed the concepts underlying the rule. Id. at 896.

Two refinements matter in practice. First, loan payments count as contributions only to the asset that the loan proceeds acquired. Land a spouse owned outright before the marriage did not become partly marital merely because it secured construction loans that marital funds later paid down. Id. at 902-04. Second, a spouse’s equity in an asset at the date of marriage counts as a separate contribution in the calculation. Id. at 905-06.

Applying those principles, the court analyzed the land and the improvements separately. It held that the land of both lots, including its appreciation, remained the husband’s separate property. It then applied the formula to the improvements on Lot 14, which produced a marital interest of $111,190.39 and a total equalization payment of $145,929.20. Id. at 904, 906. Justice Cassel concurred in part and dissented in part, questioning whether the underlying evidence supported that degree of precision. Id. at 907-08.

Comparing Stephens and Stava

Although both cases deal with property division, there are several important distinctions:

1. Primary Legal Issues

• Stephens concerns active appreciation: whether growth in a premarital asset, here a business interest, was caused by either spouse’s efforts during the marriage.
• Stava highlights how marital funds used to pay mortgage principal on a premarital asset create a marital stake in that asset. Rather than revolve around commingling per se, the core question was whether the marital estate “acquired” a share of the property by paying off the debt.

2. Scope of Newly Articulated Doctrine

• Stephens expressly adopted the active appreciation rule for all nonmarital assets. Stava expressly adopted the source of funds rule as a tool for classifying, as opposed to dividing, the equity and appreciation in assets with both marital and nonmarital interests. Stephens, 297 Neb. at 205-06; Stava, 321 Neb. at 900.
• Under Stephens, growth in a nonmarital asset is presumed marital unless the owning spouse proves it is traceable to the nonmarital portion and not caused by either spouse’s active efforts.
• Under Stava, when marital funds pay down the principal of a loan that financed an asset, the marital estate acquires a proportionate share of that asset and its appreciation. The share arises only in the asset the loan proceeds acquired. Collateral that the spouse otherwise owned does not become marital because it secured the loan. Stava, 321 Neb. at 902-04.

3. Practical Consequences

• Record-Keeping: Both decisions underline how crucial it is for spouses to keep meticulous records of their assets, debts, and sources of payments. In Stephens, the owning spouse’s failure to prove what portion of the growth came from passive forces or others’ efforts led the court to treat the entire increase in value as marital. In Stava, lacking records on mortgage payments can make it difficult to apply the source of funds formula accurately.
• Strategic Considerations: For practitioners, these cases stress the importance of knowing exactly how to present evidence of principal paydowns, appraisals, improvements, and pre/postmarital contributions. Litigants must be prepared to show these details if they hope to claim certain amounts of property are separate or if they seek to prove a portion must be included in the marital estate.

The Road Ahead: Practical Tips for Spouses and Attorneys

1. Maintain Documentation

From mortgage statements to bank records, thorough documentation of each payment (including its source) helps clarify future disputes about property classification.

2. Consider Preventive Measures

Couples sometimes use prenuptial or postnuptial agreements. If a spouse anticipates using marital funds to improve or pay down debts on separate property, a well-structured agreement can preemptively address how to split that equity.

3. Engage Financial Experts

If properties have appreciated over many years, divorcing spouses may want to hire a forensic accountant or real estate appraiser to determine values at different points in time and trace the interplay of marital and nonmarital funds.

4. Communicate and Negotiate Early

While Stava and Stephens clarify certain legal rules, litigation can be costly and stressful. If spouses can negotiate a settlement with full knowledge of how courts might classify their assets, they can often save considerable time, money, and turmoil.

Conclusion

Stava v. Stava and Stephens v. Stephens set out the framework Nebraska courts use to classify premarital property and its growth in value. Stephens adopted the active appreciation rule and placed the burden on the owning spouse. Stava adopted the source of funds rule: when marital funds pay down a loan that financed an asset, the marital estate gains a proportionate interest in that asset and its appreciation. The 2026 decision confirmed that the interest does not extend to property that merely served as collateral.

These decisions ultimately reflect Nebraska’s underlying goal of equitable division. By clarifying how nonmarital property can become, at least partially, marital, they encourage fairness in long-term marriages where both spouses have contributed resources. They also encourage spouses to maintain good records and perhaps craft premarital or postmarital agreements when significant property interests are at stake.

For divorcing couples and legal practitioners, Stava and Stephens underscore that “who pays for what” matters greatly, and that even seemingly straightforward property classifications can become complex through decades of shared financial activity. Understanding these cases, staying organized with financial records, and seeking professional guidance are the best ways to navigate the intricate questions of property division that Nebraska’s courts continue to address.

Horgan Law LLC | Omaha, NE

If you’re looking for an Omaha law firm that combines the wisdom of experience with the energy and ambition of youth, look no further than Horgan Law LLC. As experienced Omaha Lawyers, we apply our knowledge to every case and work toward a resolution that fits your goals. Our success is measured by yours-no matter what your situation is, we’ll be there to help you through it.

Contact us to schedule a consultation!