Stava v. Stava

- 840 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
32 Nebraska Appellate Reports
STAVA v. STAVA
Cite as 32 Neb. App. 840
Larry J. Stava, appellee, v.
Carine F. Stava, appellant.
___ N.W.3d ___
Filed April 30, 2024. 	No. A-23-249.
1. Divorce: Child Custody: 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 in his or her determi-
nations 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 depriv-
ing a litigant of a substantial right and denying just results in matters
submitted for disposition.
3. Divorce: Property Division. In a marital dissolution action, the equi-
table division of property is a three-step process. The first step is to clas-
sify 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.
4. ____: ____. 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.
5. ____: ____. The original value of an asset may be nonmarital, while all
or some portion of the appreciation of that asset may be marital.
6. ____: ____. 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.
7. Divorce: Property Division: Presumptions. Accrued investment
earnings or appreciation of nonmarital assets during the marriage are
Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
10/14/2026 07:46 AM CDT

- 841 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
32 Nebraska Appellate Reports
STAVA v. STAVA
Cite as 32 Neb. App. 840
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.
8. Divorce: Property Division: Real Estate. Whether appreciation in real
estate is active or passive depends on the facts and circumstances of
each case.
9. Divorce: Property Division: Proof. The burden is on the owning
spouse to prove the extent to which marital contributions did not cause
the appreciation or income.
10. Divorce: Property Division: Equity. The equity in property at the time
of marriage is a nonmarital asset which, if established, should be set
aside as separate property.
Appeal from the District Court for Washington County:
John E. Samson, Judge. Affirmed as modified.
David Pontier, of Koenig | Dunne, P.C., L.L.O., for appellant.
Donald A. Roberts, of Roberts Law, L.L.C., for appellee.
Moore, Bishop, and Arterburn, Judges.
Bishop, Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
Carine F. Stava appeals the Washington County District
Court’s decree dissolving her marriage to Larry J. Stava.
Carine assigns error to the district court’s classification of
two properties—the “marital residence acreage” and the “barn
acreage”—as Larry’s separate, premarital property and to its
application of an active appreciation analysis to the proper-
ties. The land on which the marital residence and the barn
were built was acquired and paid for by Larry before the mar-
riage; the evidence supported the fact that the land underlying
the structures was nonmarital, including its passive apprecia-
tion. The marital residence was built before the marriage but
was encumbered by a mortgage when the parties married.
The parties thereafter jointly contributed to paying down the
mortgage, with a large final lump-sum payment made with
Larry’s nonmarital funds. The court gave Carine credit for

- 842 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
32 Nebraska Appellate Reports
STAVA v. STAVA
Cite as 32 Neb. App. 840
the reduction in the mortgage on the marital residence, but
otherwise found all appreciation on the residence during the
marriage to be nonmarital. Although we might have concluded
differently regarding a portion of the appreciation on the
home, we cannot say the district court abused its discretion as
to these determinations.
We do, however, find merit to Carine’s argument with
respect to the barn built on the barn acreage, which should
have been classified as marital property, with a setoff to Larry
for his inherited nonmarital funds applied to the parties’ jointly
held loan. We therefore affirm as modified, resulting in an
increase from $45,000 to $90,334 in the marital equalization
judgment owed by Larry to Carine.
II. BACKGROUND
Larry and Carine were married on May 25, 2002. They had
no children together. Larry filed a complaint to dissolve the
marriage in December 2020; he requested an equitable divi-
sion of the parties’ property and debts. Carine filed an answer
and counterclaim seeking the same.
Trial was held on January 4 and 5, 2023. Both parties testi-
fied, and numerous exhibits were received into evidence. The
evidence will be set forth as necessary in our analysis below.
Pursuant to the district court’s decree entered on February
27, 2023, the parties’ marriage was dissolved and their prop-
erty and debts were divided; Larry was to pay Carine a
property equalization judgment of $45,000. As relevant to
this appeal, the court found that both the residential acreage
(Tax Lot 14) and the barn acreage (Tax Lot 15) were owned
by Larry prior to the marriage and that Carine’s name was
never added to any deed to those parcels. The court noted,
however, that during the parties’ marriage, they paid down
the principal balance of real estate loans: “The total mortgage
paydown during the marriage was $84,620.00 on Tax Lot 14
and $25,631.00 on Tax Lot 15 for a total of $110,251.00.” The
court also found that both Tax Lot 14 and Tax Lot 15 increased

- 843 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
32 Nebraska Appellate Reports
STAVA v. STAVA
Cite as 32 Neb. App. 840
in value during the marriage, but that Larry met his burden to
prove that the increase in value was due to market forces and
not to the active efforts of either party. “Accordingly, the only
amount that can be attributed to the marital estate with respect
to [Larry’s] home and the barn (Tax Lot 14 and Tax Lot 15),
is the paydown on the mortgages set forth above in the sum
of $110,251.00.”
Carine appeals.
III. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
Carine assigns that the district court erred (1) by classify-
ing Tax Lot 14 and Tax Lot 15 as Larry’s separate, premarital
property and (2) by applying an active appreciation analysis
to marital property and erroneously identifying and tracing
all appreciation on Tax Lot 14 and Tax Lot 15 to Larry’s non-
marital interests in the properties, thereby inequitably dividing
the parties’ marital estate. Alternatively, Carine assigns that
the district court erred (3) in finding that Larry met his burden
to show that all appreciation on Tax Lot 14 and Tax Lot 15
was caused by passive appreciation.
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 in his
or her determinations regarding custody, child support, divi-
sion of property, alimony, and attorney fees. Parde v. Parde,
313 Neb. 779, 986 N.W.2d 504 (2023). 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 disposi-
tion. Id.
V. ANALYSIS
1. General Principles of Law
[3] In a marital dissolution action, the equitable divi-
sion of property is a three-step process. The first step is to

- 844 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
32 Nebraska Appellate Reports
STAVA v. STAVA
Cite as 32 Neb. App. 840
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 cal-
culate and divide the net marital estate equitably between the
parties. Id.
[4-6] 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. Id.
The original value of an asset may be nonmarital, while all or
some portion of the appreciation of that asset may be marital.
Id. 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. Id.
[7] 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. Accrued investment earn-
ings or appreciation of nonmarital assets during the marriage
are presumed marital unless the party seeking the classifica-
tion 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. Id. Appreciation caused by marital contribu-
tions is known as active appreciation, and it constitutes marital
property. Id. Passive appreciation is appreciation caused by
separate contributions and nonmarital forces. Id.
[8] Some assets are more subject to active appreciation,
while others are more subject to passive appreciation. Id. By
its nature, real estate is more prone to passive appreciation.
Id. This is because real estate tends to rise and fall in value
for reasons beyond the parties’ control. Id. Ultimately, whether
appreciation in real estate is active or passive depends on the
facts and circumstances of each case. Id. In that regard, evi-
dence relating to the cause of appreciation is key. Id.

- 845 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
32 Nebraska Appellate Reports
STAVA v. STAVA
Cite as 32 Neb. App. 840
[9] The burden is on the owning spouse to prove the extent
to which marital contributions did not cause the appreciation
or income. Id.
With these principles in mind, we discuss Tax Lot 14 and
Tax Lot 15, the properties at issue in this appeal.
2. Tax Lot 14
(a) Evidence at Trial
In January 1997, Larry purchased 32 acres of real prop-
erty from his parents described as Tax Lot 14 in Section
34, Township 17 North, Range 11 East of the 6th P.M., in
Washington County, Nebraska. Larry testified that he paid for
Tax Lot 14 in full prior to the parties’ May 2002 marriage.
Larry also built a house and shed on Tax Lot 14 prior to the
parties’ marriage; both the primary and secondary buildings
went on the tax rolls in 1999. To build the home, Larry took
out a $195,000 loan, at 7.95 percent interest, from Pinnacle
Bank in September 1999. Larry paid on that loan until the
parties were married, after which the parties jointly refinanced
the loan in September 2003 with one bank and transferred the
loan in 2009 to another bank.
In 2014, Larry sold another property he owned prior to the
parties’ marriage—“Lot 4 at Bennington Industrial Park”—for
$182,500. Larry used $107,126.88 of those nonmarital funds
to pay off the home loan on November 13.
Larry calculated the amount of the principal that was paid
down on the home loans during the parties’ marriage. According
to his calculations, there was a total principal reduction of
$84,620 during the marriage; he believed that Carine should
get credit for one-half of that amount.
Carine believed that she should get a portion of the marital
equity in Tax Lot 14. However, if the district court determined
that she was not entitled to a portion of the marital equity,
then the parties stipulated that she should get $42,310 in credit
for her one-half of the mortgage reduction. Larry requested

- 846 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
32 Nebraska Appellate Reports
STAVA v. STAVA
Cite as 32 Neb. App. 840
that Tax Lot 14 be awarded to him, giving Carine credit for
one-half of the mortgage reduction.
When asked if, after building the home, he made any sub-
stantial improvements to it (e.g., adding rooms or building
on), Larry replied, “No.” He agreed that routine maintenance
and upkeep occurred during the marriage. That work included
painting the inside of the home several times, including a
custom mural; drywall repair work; adding a ceiling to make
a room in the unfinished part of the basement; adding carpet
to the basement (there was none before); replacing carpet with
“composite hard floor” on the main floor of the home; and
repairing water damage in a bathroom. Carine testified that
the parties also added a bedroom in the basement. Taxes were
paid during the marriage with marital funds.
Russell Nelsen, a certified real estate appraiser, was hired by
Larry to appraise the property. Nelsen did a “retro” appraisal
to determine the 2002 value of the land and the structures, and
he also determined the 2022 value of the land and the struc-
tures. His reports were received into evidence.
Nelsen testified that “after the inspection” for residential
appraisals, comparable sales are used as the “main source
of valuation” and “replacement cost less depreciation” is the
other method. Nelsen stated that an “income approach” is
not typically accurate for valuing a single-family residential
property. When doing an appraisal for a previous time period,
the main difference is that there is no inspection, “[b]ut oth-
erwise, it’s all comparable sales from that period and then
preceding that period up to maybe six months to a year.”
Nelsen determined that the value of Tax Lot 14 (land, house,
and outbuilding) was $385,000 in May 2002 and $860,000
in November 2022—an increase of $475,000. More specifi-
cally, he determined that the site (land) value was $121,600
in May 2002 and $512,000 in November 2022, an increase
of $390,400 attributable to just the land. In his supplemental
addendum, Nelsen wrote:

- 847 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
32 Nebraska Appellate Reports
STAVA v. STAVA
Cite as 32 Neb. App. 840
The value estimates . . . have increased substantially
over the past 20 years. In the case of TAX LOT 14 that
has the house and outbuilding, the value increase is
mostly due to market forces that have influenced land
values as well as single family rural residential values in
this area. Per owner, very few improvements to the home
have been made over this time frame. These include
some updated flooring and basement finish which has
minimal influence on value.
. . . .
Land value for the subject’s tracts have increased over
400%.
Nelsen was asked for his opinion as to why the value for
Tax Lot 14 had increased since 2002. Nelsen stated, “The
market has substantially increased in the last few years, and
it’s all due to what’s happened in the market, as far as values
have increased substantially with regards to both improve-
ments and the land for homes.” When asked if it was his opin-
ion that the increase in value was not due to improvements
but due to market forces, Nelsen replied, “Yeah, it was mostly
market forces due to the increase in . . . values of acreage
property . . . .” Nelsen answered affirmatively when asked if
a reason for the increase was that a lot of people were look-
ing for acreage property. He was also asked if a reason for the
increase was lending practices. Nelsen responded, “Yep, pretty
much. Values are always a function of financing, and banks,
they tend to be more eagerly willing to finance on homes on
acreages rather than outbuildings.”
On cross-examination, Nelsen testified that “[t]here were
some dated features in the home, but it had been maintained
fairly well,” with “pretty much average maintenance.” On
redirect examination, Nelsen stated that “[t]ypical maintenance
does not” increase property value. According to Nelsen, the
flooring work and basement finish were minimal maintenance.
He said, “[A]ny basement finish value is a function of financ-
ing” and “[b]anks do not give a lot of credit to basement

- 848 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
32 Nebraska Appellate Reports
STAVA v. STAVA
Cite as 32 Neb. App. 840
finish,” “[e]specially if it’s average or less”; “there’s noth-
ing extra fancy about the basement finish in that home.” On
recross-examination, Nelsen stated that other than “flooring
and a little bit of basement finish,” he was not aware of any
other efforts by the parties to maintain or improve the home.
And when asked again about his opinion as to the specific
reason for the increase in the value of Tax Lot 14, Nelsen said,
“It’s mostly due to market forces, . . . site and per square foot
value on the house, how they’ve increased.”
(b) District Court’s Ruling
The district court found that Tax Lot 14 was owned by
Larry prior to the marriage and that Carine’s name was never
added to any deed to that parcel. The court noted, however,
that “[t]he total mortgage paydown during the marriage was
$84,620.00 on Tax Lot 14 . . . .” The court found that the
residential acreage increased in value during the marriage, but
that according to Nelsen, whose testimony the court found to
be credible, the increase in value was due to market forces.
Additionally, the court accepted Nelsen’s testimony that nor-
mal maintenance of the house did not increase the value of
the property. The court found that Larry met his burden to
prove that the increase in value of the property was due to
market forces and not to the active efforts of either party.
“Accordingly, the only amount that can be attributed to the
marital estate with respect to [Larry’s home, Tax Lot 14], is
the paydown on the mortgage[].”
(c) Did District Court Abuse
Its Discretion?
(i) Premarital Land
Larry owned the 32-acre parcel of land outright prior to the
parties’ marriage; it was therefore Larry’s nonmarital asset.
However, the land value appreciated $390,400 during the
marriage. The appreciation of nonmarital assets during the
marriage is presumed marital, and the burden was on Larry

- 849 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
32 Nebraska Appellate Reports
STAVA v. STAVA
Cite as 32 Neb. App. 840
to prove otherwise. See Parde v. Parde, 313 Neb. 779, 986
N.W.2d 504 (2023). To do so, Larry had to prove (1) the
growth was readily identifiable and traceable to the nonmari-
tal portion of the asset and (2) the growth was not due to the
active efforts of either party. See id. We agree with the district
court that Larry met his burden to prove the land and its appre-
ciation was nonmarital. Nelsen’s appraisal showed that the land
itself (Larry’s nonmarital asset) increased in value by $390,400
during the parties’ marriage. Further, Nelsen testified that the
increase in land value was due to market forces. There was no
evidence to the contrary. Accordingly, the land’s appreciated
value is solely Larry’s nonmarital asset, and the district court
did not abuse its discretion in this regard.
(ii) House
[10] Larry also owned the house and outbuilding prior to
the parties’ marriage, but it was encumbered by a mortgage.
According to Nelsen’s appraisal, the home and outbuilding
had a value of $263,400 at the time of the parties’ marriage
in May 2002 ($385,000 total value of Tax Lot 14 minus
$121,600 land value). Larry had a mortgage loan balance of
$190,306 in May 2002. Thus, Larry’s equity in the home at
the time of the marriage was $73,094 ($263,400 value minus
$190,306 loan balance). The equity in property at the time of
marriage is a nonmarital asset which, if established, should be
set aside as separate property. Parde v. Parde, supra.
During the parties’ marriage, the mortgage was paid down
with $84,620 of marital funds, and then was paid off with
$107,126.88 	of 	Larry’s 	nonmarital 	funds 	(proceeds 	from
the sale of another nonmarital property). The district court
assigned the $84,620 marital paydown of the mortgage loan as
a marital asset awarded to Larry; this effectively gave Carine
credit for one-half of that mortgage reduction. We find no
abuse of discretion in that regard.
The remaining issue is the district court’s treatment of
the appreciation in the house and outbuilding. According to

- 850 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
32 Nebraska Appellate Reports
STAVA v. STAVA
Cite as 32 Neb. App. 840
Nelsen’s appraisal, the value of the home and outbuilding
was $348,000 in November 2022 ($860,000 total value of
Tax Lot 14 minus $512,000 land value). Subtracting out the
$84,620 marital paydown already accounted for by the dis-
trict court, the remaining value of the home and outbuilding
is $263,380. However, Larry is entitled to have his $73,094
premarital equity and $107,126.88 mortgage payoff from non-
marital funds set aside as nonmarital assets. Thus, the house
and outbuilding had $83,159.12 in remaining equity due to
appreciation. We summarize our calculations below:
Total Value of Tax Lot 14 in 2022 	$860,000.00
Land Value 	(512,000.00)
Home and Outbuilding Value 	$348,000.00
Marital Mortgage Paydown 	(84,620.00)
Remaining Home and
Outbuilding Value 	$263,380.00
Larry’s Premarital Equity 	(73,094.00)
Larry’s Nonmarital Payoff 	(107,126.88)
Remaining Equity in Home
and Outbuilding 	$ 83,159.12
As stated previously, the appreciation of nonmarital assets
during the marriage is presumed marital, and the burden was
on Larry to prove otherwise. Parde v. Parde, supra. To do
so, Larry had to prove (1) the growth was readily identifiable
and traceable to the nonmarital portion of the asset and (2)
the growth was not due to the active efforts of either party.
See id.
Nelsen testified that the increase in the value from 2002 to
2022 was “mostly” due to market forces. People were look-
ing for acreage property, “[v]alues are always a function of
financing,” and “banks . . . tend to be more eagerly willing
to finance on homes on acreages rather than outbuildings.”
Nelsen noted that the home had some dated features but had
been maintained fairly well, with “pretty much average main-
tenance.” However, “[t]ypical maintenance does not” increase
property value. He also stated that there was basement finish,

- 851 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
32 Nebraska Appellate Reports
STAVA v. STAVA
Cite as 32 Neb. App. 840
but “[b]anks do not give a lot of credit to basement finish,”
“[e]specially if it’s average or less”; “there’s nothing extra
fancy about the basement finish in that home.”
Carine testified that during the marriage she “did probably
90 percent of the cleaning in the house” and Larry “did the
maintenance.” The parties also had someone paint the main
level of the home, and Carine hired someone to paint a “cus-
tom room.” While Larry was gone hunting, Carine “had the
basement painted and carpeted” and “also had [a bedroom]
built” in the basement. Carine also traded some “horse work”
(lessons and care) and took on some freelance riding instructor
work at other barns to fund the replacement of flooring in the
home. Although Carine testified that the foregoing improve-
ments were made, she did not produce evidence to support
that these improvements increased the home’s value.
The district court found Nelsen’s testimony to be credible
and accepted his testimony that normal maintenance did not
increase the property value. The court also found that Larry
met his burden to show that no improvements were made dur-
ing the marriage that increased the value of the home and that
the increase in value was due to market forces “(e[.]g. . . .
increase in construction costs)” and not to the active efforts of
either party.
We observe that although Nelsen’s testimony supported that
the appreciation was “mostly” due to market forces, he never
claimed it was entirely related to market forces. Therefore,
while most of the remaining presumed marital appreciation of
$ 83,159.12 was sufficiently proved as nonmarital by Nelsen’s
testimony, the “mostly” language left open the possibility
that some portion of it could have remained characterized as
marital property. Besides the evidence regarding the various
improvements made to the home and the joint payments made
on the house mortgage by the parties for at least a decade
before the house loan was paid off, we note that the parties
also jointly paid insurance and property taxes for Tax Lot 14
during their marriage, thus depleting the marital estate (while

- 852 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
32 Nebraska Appellate Reports
STAVA v. STAVA
Cite as 32 Neb. App. 840
benefiting the nonmarital property) without any corresponding
equitable credit. Therefore, in our view, some portion of the
$83,159.12 in appreciation could have remained characterized
as marital. However, given our standard of review, we cannot
say the district court abused its discretion in finding otherwise,
since it was reasonable for the court to rely on Nelsen’s opin-
ion that the appreciation was due to market forces and not the
active efforts of the parties.
3. Tax Lot 15
(a) Evidence at Trial
In 	January 	1998, 	Larry 	purchased 	approximately 	33.7
acres of real property described as Tax Lot 15 in Section
34, Township 17 North, Range 11 East of the 6th P.M., in
Washington County, Nebraska. Larry testified that he paid
cash for Tax Lot 15; the real estate transfer statement shows a
purchase price of $169,000.
Larry stated that prior to the parties’ marriage, he and Carine
talked about building a barn so that Carine could operate a
horse business. In October 2001, Larry and Carine formed
“The Farm at Butterflat Creek, L.L.C.” According to the oper-
ating agreement, it was to be a “[h]orse boarding business and
[to] provide instruction and training.” Larry and Carine were
equal members of the business.
Larry testified that a barn was built on Tax Lot 15 prior to
the parties’ May 2002 marriage. To construct the barn, Larry
and Carine took out a $180,215.75 loan, at 7.5 percent inter-
est, from Pinnacle Bank on October 4, 2001; both parties
were listed as borrowers on the loan documents. The sched-
uled monthly payments were $2,229.36 per month beginning
May 1, 2002, with a final balloon payment of $113,182.15
due on April 1, 2007. The deed of trust for the loan was
secured by Tax Lot 14 and Tax Lot 15. The Pinnacle Bank
barn loan was paid off on January 30, 2004.
Larry 	testified 	that 	his 	mother 	wanted 	to 	carry 	the
barn loan, so on January 30, 2004, his mother gave him

- 853 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
32 Nebraska Appellate Reports
STAVA v. STAVA
Cite as 32 Neb. App. 840
$180,000—$10,000 was a gift and the other $170,000 was a
loan. (Prior to trial, Carine had never heard about a $10,000
gift to Larry.) Exhibits in evidence show that Larry used
$156,754.74 of that money to pay off the Pinnacle Bank barn
loan on January 30. (That same day he used an additional
$22,024.64 to pay the parties’ separate Pinnacle Bank loan
for a 1999 Dodge Ram and a 1995 trailer.) Also on January
30, Larry and Carine signed a promissory note promising
to pay $157,000, at 4.5 percent interest, to Larry’s mother,
“Marcella M. Stava, Trustee, or her successor Trustee, of the
STAVA REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST.” The deed of trust
for the loan was secured by Tax Lot 15. (Larry and Carine
signed a second promissory note on January 30 promising to
pay the trustee of the Stava Revocable Living Trust $13,000,
at 4.5 percent interest; this loan was secured by the 1999
Dodge Ram.) The parties made monthly loan payments to
Larry’s mother.
Larry’s mother passed away in July 2005, and Larry’s
brother was the personal representative of her estate. Larry
received a letter from his brother dated August 4, 2005,
informing him that $100,000 “from the Stava Revocable
Living Trust has been distributed to you in the form of a
reduction of your promissory note” as of that date. Larry
received a second letter from his brother dated November
23, 2005, informing him that $53,270.89 “from the Stava
Revocable Living Trust has been distributed to you in the
form of a reduction of your promissory note” as of that
date. Larry testified that those reductions paid off the two
promissory notes and that he paid no further money on those
promissory notes.
Larry calculated the amount of the principal that was
paid down on the barn loans during the parties’ marriage.
According to his calculations, there was a total principal pay-
down of $25,631 by the parties during the marriage. Carine
believed that she should get a portion of the marital equity
in the property. However, if the district court determined that

- 854 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
32 Nebraska Appellate Reports
STAVA v. STAVA
Cite as 32 Neb. App. 840
she was not entitled to a portion of the marital equity, then the
parties stipulated that she should get $12,815 in credit for her
one-half of the barn loan paydown. Larry requested that Tax
Lot 15 be awarded to him, giving Carine credit for one-half of
the parties’ principal paydown on the barn loan.
Larry agreed that the fences and buildings on the property
had to be repaired and maintained during the marriage. The
land also had to be maintained during the marriage to suc-
cessfully produce hay that Larry sold. The road was “rocked”
at the time of the parties’ marriage; however, it needed to be
graded periodically and have more gravel added. The sand in
the arenas needed to be leveled and “harrow[ed]” to maintain
them. Larry “bladed and maintained the dry lots the same
way.” Taxes on the barn were paid during the marriage. Larry
said that he took care of the land while Carine took care of
the customers.
Carine testified that her responsibility was teaching, train-
ing, and maintaining the horses, while Larry took care of any
required maintenance and the finances. Carine said that she
also provided maintenance and upkeep on the barn property;
that she “fixed the fence multiple times, pulling posts out,
adding posts, adding rails”; that she worked on the equipment,
painted, put in motion lights, “sprayed for weeds quite a bit”
and cut them down (to prevent trees from growing); and that
she “just laid gravel down here recently.” She also testified
that she added “a concrete wash bay and two outdoor loafing
sheds or turnout sheds so the horses could have shelter,” as
well as three metal pens.
Nelsen also appraised this property. He again did a “retro”
appraisal to determine the 2002 value, and he also determined
the 2022 value of the property. His reports were received into
evidence. Nelsen testified that “comparable sales are limited”
for both 2002 and 2022, but otherwise, he used the same
methodology for Tax Lot 15 that he used for Tax Lot 14.
Nelsen determined that the value of Tax Lot 15 (land and
improvements) was $386,700 in May 2002 and $794,000

- 855 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
32 Nebraska Appellate Reports
STAVA v. STAVA
Cite as 32 Neb. App. 840
in November 2022—an increase of $407,300. More specifi-
cally, he determined that the site (land) value was $128,500
in May 2002 and $540,000 in November 2022—an increase
of $411,500, attributable to just the land. In his supplemental
addendum, Nelsen wrote:
The value estimates . . . have increased substantially
over the past 20 years. . . .
With regards to TAX LOT 15 that has the barn/
stable and other open outbuilding, no major additional
improvements have been made since 2002. Unimproved
land values in the area have increased greatly over the
past 2-3 years. The increase in value for this tract is
also due to market forces. Most of the increase in value
for this tract is due to the increase in the subject’s site
value. The 2022 value of improvements on this tract are
estimated to be similar to the 2002 value as an increase
of construction costs are mostly off set by physical
depreciation. Some improvement value increase is noted.
Value is influenced by financing and lenders in 2002 and
2022 place less value on outbuildings than on a home in
a rural setting.
Land value for the subject’s tracts have increased over
400%. The value increase for TAX LOT 15 is mostly
based on the increase in its’ [sic] site value.
Nelsen testified that he “did not detect any major recent
improvements on the barn or other exterior improvements.”
He testified: “Market forces have influenced particularly land
values in that area. The improvement value not so much, but
certainly the land values have increased substantially.” Nelsen
was asked if, in his expert opinion, the increase in value
of Tax Lot 15 was a result of market forces as opposed to
improvements; he replied, “Yes, for sure.”
On cross-examination, Nelsen testified that he “gathered
. . . there hadn’t been really any improvements” on the
barn and that “[i]f there were, it was very limited” and
was “[p]retty much all maintenance items again.” “Typical

- 856 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
32 Nebraska Appellate Reports
STAVA v. STAVA
Cite as 32 Neb. App. 840
maintenance does not” increase property value. With regard to
the improvement value noted in his supplemental addendum,
“[a]ny improvement value was based on increase in construc-
tion costs not any other additional improvements.” On redi-
rect examination, Nelsen testified that “any increase in value,
other than site increase on the barn, is due to increased con-
struction costs”; that “banks do not care to put a lot of lend-
ing value on outbuildings”; and that “[t]herefore, increased
construction costs do not have a lot of bearing on value for
outbuildings.” When asked again for his expert opinion as to
the specific reason for the increase in the value of Tax Lot 15,
Nelsen said, “It’s mostly due to market forces, site value in
particular . . . .”
(b) District Court’s Ruling
The district court found that Tax Lot 15 was owned by
Larry prior to the marriage and that Carine’s name was never
added to any deed to that parcel. The court noted, however,
that “[t]he total mortgage paydown during the marriage was
. . . $25,631.00 on Tax Lot 15 . . . .” The court also found
that Tax Lot 15 increased in value during the marriage, but
that according to Nelsen, whose testimony the court found to
be credible, the increase in value was due to market forces.
Additionally, the court accepted Nelsen’s testimony that nor-
mal maintenance of the barn did not increase the value of
the property. The court found that Larry met his burden to
prove that the increase in value was due to market forces and
not to the active efforts of either party. The court concluded,
“Accordingly, the only amount that can be attributed to the
marital estate with respect to [the barn, Tax Lot 15], is the
paydown on the mortgage[] . . . .”
(c) Did District Court Abuse
Its Discretion?
(i) Premarital Land
Larry owned the 33.7 acres comprising Tax Lot 15 out-
right prior to the parties’ marriage; it was therefore Larry’s

- 857 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
32 Nebraska Appellate Reports
STAVA v. STAVA
Cite as 32 Neb. App. 840
nonmarital 	asset. 	However, 	the 	land 	value 	appreciated
$411,500 during the marriage. The appreciation of nonmari-
tal assets during the marriage is presumed marital, and the
burden was on Larry to prove otherwise; we agree with the
district court that he did so as to the land and its appreciation.
See Parde v. Parde, 313 Neb. 779, 986 N.W.2d 504 (2023).
Nelsen’s appraisal showed that the land itself (Larry’s non-
marital asset) increased in value by $411,500 during the par-
ties’ marriage. Further, Nelsen testified that the increase in
land value was due to market forces. By its nature, real estate
is more prone to passive appreciation. Id. This is because real
estate tends to rise and fall in value for reasons beyond the
parties’ control. Id. Accordingly, the land, at its appreciated
value, is solely Larry’s nonmarital asset, and the district court
did not abuse its discretion in this regard.
(ii) Barn
The district court found the barn and its entire appreciation
to be nonmarital. We conclude that the record demonstrates
otherwise.
Larry and Carine jointly obtained a construction loan and
built a barn on Tax Lot 15 just prior to their marriage. The
parties made loan payments to the bank and then to Larry’s
mother during the marriage, before the loan was ultimately
satisfied in 2005. Although built on premarital land, the barn
was clearly a marital asset. 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. Parde v. Parde, supra. The barn’s concep-
tion, construction, and financing was a joint effort, with the
first payment on the barn loan commencing the month the par-
ties were married.
According to Nelsen’s appraisal, the value of the barn
and open shed was $254,000 in November 2022 ($794,000
total value of Tax Lot 15 minus $540,000 land value). We
note that this is actually lower than the May 2002 value of

- 858 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
32 Nebraska Appellate Reports
STAVA v. STAVA
Cite as 32 Neb. App. 840
$258,200 ($386,700 total value of Tax Lot 15 minus $128,500
land value) and that thus, the barn did not appreciate during
the marriage.
Using Nelsen’s 2022 value of $254,000, Larry is first
entitled to a setoff for his nonmarital funds used to pay down
the principal on the construction loan. After Larry’s mother
passed away, Larry received two letters in 2005, one dated
August 4, 2005, and one dated November 23, 2005, inform-
ing him that $100,000 and $53,270.89, respectively, “from
the Stava Revocable Living Trust has been distributed to you
in the form of a reduction of your promissory note” as of the
date on each letter. Larry testified that those reductions paid
off the two promissory notes, and he paid no further money
on those promissory notes. Larry contends the total of those
two inheritance reductions, $153,270.89, should be set off as
nonmarital payments on the barn. However, we find the evi-
dence only supports $137,701 being set off as nonmarital, as
discussed next.
In January 2004, Larry’s mother gifted him $10,000 and
loaned him an additional $170,000; the total amount of
$180,000 went to pay off two different loans at Pinnacle
Bank, the construction loan ($156,754.74) and a loan for the
parties’ 1999 Dodge Ram and 1995 trailer ($22,024.64). At
the same time, Larry and Carine signed a promissory note
promising to pay his mother $157,000 (secured by Tax Lot
15) and another promissory note for $13,000 (secured by the
1999 Dodge Ram). The parties made monthly loan payments
on these two notes to Larry’s mother.
According to amortization calculators for each promis-
sory note, at the time of the first distribution via Larry’s
inheritance reduction in August 2005, the balance on the
loan secured by Tax Lot 15 was $137,701 and the balance
on the loan secured by the truck was $6,719. Therefore, of
the $153,270.89 inheritance distributions Larry received via
reductions on promissory notes, Larry is entitled to a setoff
of $137,701 of that amount from the November 2022 barn

- 859 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
32 Nebraska Appellate Reports
STAVA v. STAVA
Cite as 32 Neb. App. 840
value of $254,000. That leaves $116,299 of marital equity in
the barn, rather than the $25,631 in marital mortgage principal
reduction allowed by the district court. Carine is entitled to
one-half ($58,149.50) of that marital equity. Carine is there-
fore entitled to an additional marital equalization of $45,334
($58,149.50 minus the $12,815.50 credit already given by the
district court). Adding $45,334 to the $45,000 equalization
judgment previously ordered results in a modification of the
equalization judgment to $90,334 owed by Larry to Carine.
VI. CONCLUSION
Because we conclude the district court abused its discretion
in how it characterized the parties’ barn and its appreciation,
we modify the equalization judgment from $45,000 to $90,334
owed by Larry to Carine. We otherwise affirm the district
court’s February 27, 2023, decree.
Affirmed as modified.