Jeffers v. Jeffers

- 221 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
JEFFERS v. JEFFERS
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 221
Charles L. Jeffers, appellee, v.
Lynne R. Jeffers, appellant.
___ N.W.3d ___
Filed April 14, 2026. 	No. A-25-309.
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. Judgments: Motions for New Trial: Appeal and Error. An appellate
court reviews a denial of a motion for new trial or, in the alternative, to
alter or amend the judgment, for an abuse of discretion.
3. Judges: Words and Phrases. A judicial abuse of discretion exists if the
reasons or rulings of a trial judge are clearly untenable, unfairly depriv-
ing a litigant of a substantial right and denying just results in matters
submitted for disposition.
4. Evidence: Appeal and Error. When evidence is in conflict, the appel-
late court considers and may give weight to the fact that the trial court
heard and observed the witnesses and accepted one version of the facts
rather than another.
5. Alimony: Words and Phrases. “Alimony in gross,” or “lump-sum ali-
mony,” is fundamentally the award of a definite sum of money; and if
the sum is payable in installments, the payments run for a definite length
of time. The sum is payable in full, regardless of future events such as
the death of the husband or the remarriage of the wife.
6. Alimony: Time. The reasonable duration of an alimony award depends
on the specific facts in a given case, often the amount of time required
to allow the recipient spouse to support himself or herself.
7. Alimony. The purpose of alimony is to provide for the continued main-
tenance or support of one party by the other when the relative economic
circumstances make it appropriate.
Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
10/18/2026 12:36 AM CDT

- 222 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
JEFFERS v. JEFFERS
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 221
8. Alimony: Appeal and Error. In reviewing an alimony award, an appel-
late 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 a
just result.
9. Property Division. Equitable property division under Neb. Rev. Stat.
§ 42-365 (Reissue 2016) is a three-step process. The first step is to clas-
sify the parties’ property as marital or nonmarital. The second step is to
value the marital assets and determine the parties’ marital liabilities. The
third step is to calculate and divide the net marital estate between the
parties in accordance with the principles contained in § 42-365.
10. Divorce: Property Division. Any given property can constitute a mix-
ture of marital and nonmarital interests; a portion of an asset can be
marital property while another portion can be separate property.
11. Divorce: Property Division: Proof. The burden of proof rests with the
party claiming that the property is nonmarital.
12. Divorce: Property Division. Appreciation, be it active or passive, in
the marital interest is always marital; it is simply part of the mari-
tal property.
13. ____: ____. Separate property can become marital property through
active appreciation.
14. Property Division: Proof. The burden of proving an asset has appreci-
ated is on the party seeking to share in it.
Appeal from the District Court for Hayes County: Patrick
M. Heng, Judge. Affirmed.
Samantha J. Merrill and Bradley D. Holbrook, of Jacobsen,
Orr, Lindstrom & Holbrook, P.C., L.L.O., for appellant.
Jack W. Besse, of Parker, Grossart & Bahensky, L.L.P., for
appellee.
Riedmann, Chief Judge, and Bishop and Welch, Judges.
Riedmann, Chief Judge.
INTRODUCTION
Lynne R. Jeffers appeals the order of the district court
for Hayes County dissolving her marriage to Charles L.
Jeffers (Larry), dividing the marital estate, and awarding her

- 223 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
JEFFERS v. JEFFERS
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 221
alimony. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the
district court.
BACKGROUND
Larry and Lynne were married on September 2, 2007. It was
neither party’s first marriage, and no children were born from
the marriage. Larry filed a complaint for dissolution in January
2023. Trial was held in October 2024, when both parties were
over 70 years old. We recount the evidence presented at trial as
is relevant to the assigned errors on appeal.
Larry and his father farmed together, and in 1976, they
formed Jeffers Farms, Incorporated. Larry, his father, and a
relative all owned shares at different times. Eventually, Larry
and his two sons, Christopher Jeffers and Cody Jeffers, became
the sole shareholders. At the time of the parties’ marriage, the
total number of outstanding shares in Jeffers Farms was 5,215;
Larry owned 3,915 shares, and Christopher and Cody each
owned 650 shares.
In 2004, Cody began taking over farm operations while
Larry helped with daily chores. From 2004 to 2011, approx-
imately 90 percent of Larry’s time was spent helping Lynne
prepare for the sale of her premarital property in Lincoln
County. Larry testified that once Cody took over farm oper-
ations, Larry ceased to be involved with decisions related to
crops and animals. He was not involved in making purchases
for machinery, equipment, or livestock. Larry was no longer
involved with the business and financial decisions of the
corporation. Jeffers Farms paid Larry a monthly salary, some-
times characterized on tax returns as rent, and the corporation
also furnished Larry and Lynne with a home and paid their
living, personal, and vehicle expenses.
In 2009, Larry and Lynne decided that Lynne would stop
working. Lynne began providing childcare for Cody’s children,
though she could not recall if that was part of the discussion
when deciding to stop working. Lynne also delivered parts on
the farm and cooked. Between 2010 and 2014, Jeffers Farms

- 224 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
JEFFERS v. JEFFERS
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 221
made updates and remodels to the corporate-owned homes,
including new siding, windows, and a furnace and air con-
ditioning unit. No evidence was presented regarding whether
those improvements resulted in an increase in the homes’
values, and if so, in what amount. Between 2007 and 2023,
no improvements were made to the land other than routine
maintenance. In 2013, Cody decided to farm 1,800 acres of
land himself, rather than custom hire it out, so the corporation
purchased various pieces of equipment to accomplish that.
Larry denied any involvement in decisionmaking regarding the
purchase of machinery or equipment.
In 2018, Jeffers Farms redeemed Christopher’s stock for
$30,000. The redeemed stock went back into the corporation,
and Larry’s total number of shares did not increase. At the time
of marriage, Larry’s ownership share in Jeffers Farms was 75
percent, but after the redemption, it increased to 86 percent
because Christopher’s redeemed shares were retired. Larry did
not recall how the price for the redemption was determined.
At the time of trial, Lynne had moved to Illinois, was living
with her son, and had a part-time job. When asked why she
began working part time, Lynne stated that she “needed some-
thing to do” and that she “needed help with covering [her] law-
yer’s fees.” Lynne received approximately $2,200 per month in
Social Security benefits. She received $229 per month from a
retirement benefit and $258 per month as payment on money
she had loaned her son. Lynne also had funds in an investment
account, though they did not generate a monthly payment.
Larry had issues with his health dating back to 2006,
including heart issues, leukemia, and infections from surgeries,
which affected his ability to work. He received approximately
$1,800 per month in Social Security benefits. At trial, it was
unclear whether Jeffers Farms would continue to pay him a
monthly salary.
Larry’s opinion was that the corporation itself had not
increased in value because any increase in value was due to real
estate. According to Larry, that increase was a result of “[r]ich

- 225 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
JEFFERS v. JEFFERS
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 221
people being scared to put their money anywhere besides
land.” Cody explained that “Farm Credit Services [required
an annual] balance sheet” and that the value of the land was
estimated based upon comparable sales. There was a signifi-
cant change in the real estate value from 2023-24 because it
was adjusted to more accurately reflect its value in anticipation
of Cody’s applying for a loan, which ultimately did not occur.
Cody attributed any increase in value to an adjustment based
on comparable sales. He denied that any improvements were
made to the land during Larry’s marriage.
The district court dissolved the parties’ marriage and divided
the marital estate. It found the increase in the value of the real
estate and in Larry’s stock in Jeffers Farms was not due to
the active efforts of either party, so any increase in value was
nonmarital. Lynne was awarded alimony of $1,000 per month
for 24 months, and then $500 per month for an additional 24
months. The alimony was ordered to terminate upon the death
of either party, Lynne’s remarriage, or the expiration of the
48-month term. Following the denial of Lynne’s motion for
new trial and/or to alter or amend, Lynne appealed.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
Lynne assigns, restated, that the district court erred in (1)
failing to award her alimony in gross, (2) finding the appre-
ciation on Jeffers Farms was passive and thus nonmarital, and
(3) finding the increase in Larry’s ownership share of Jeffers
Farms was nonmarital.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[1] In a marital dissolution action, an appellate court reviews
the case de novo on the record to determine whether there has
been an abuse of discretion by the trial judge in his or her
determinations regarding custody, child support, division of
property, alimony, and attorney fees. Simons v. Simons, 312
Neb. 136, 978 N.W.2d 121 (2022).
[2] An appellate court reviews a denial of a motion for new
trial or, in the alternative, to alter or amend the judgment, for

- 226 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
JEFFERS v. JEFFERS
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 221
an abuse of discretion. BCL Properties v. Boyle, 314 Neb. 607,
992 N.W.2d 440 (2023).
[3] 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. Simons, supra.
[4] When evidence is in conflict, the appellate court con-
siders and may give weight to the fact that the trial court
heard and observed the witnesses and accepted one version of
the facts rather than another. Stava v. Stava, 318 Neb. 32, 13
N.W.3d 184 (2024).
ANALYSIS
Alimony in Gross.
Lynne assigns that the district court erred by failing to award
her alimony in gross. We find no abuse of discretion in the
alimony award.
[5] Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (Reissue 2016) provides, in
part: “Except as otherwise agreed by the parties in writing
or by order of the court, alimony orders shall terminate upon
the death of either party or the remarriage of the recipient.”
“Alimony in gross,” or “lump-sum alimony,” is fundamentally
the award of a definite sum of money; and if the sum is pay-
able in installments, the payments run for a definite length of
time. Ball v. Ball, 183 Neb. 216, 159 N.W.2d 297 (1968). The
sum is payable in full, regardless of future events such as the
death of the husband or the remarriage of the wife. Id.
In dividing property and considering alimony upon a dis-
solution of marriage, a court should consider four factors:
(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 gain-
ful employment without interfering with the interests of any
minor children in the custody of each party. Scott v. Scott, 319
Neb. 877, 25 N.W.3d 439 (2025). In addition to the specific
criteria listed in § 42-365, a court should consider the income

- 227 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
JEFFERS v. JEFFERS
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 221
and earning capacity of each party and the general equities of
the situation. Scott, supra.
[6-8] The reasonable duration of an alimony award depends
on the specific facts in a given case, often the amount of
time required to allow the recipient spouse to support himself
or herself. Karas v. Karas, 314 Neb. 857, 993 N.W.2d 473
(2023). The purpose of alimony is to provide for the contin-
ued maintenance or support of one party by the other when
the relative economic circumstances make it appropriate.
Scott, supra. 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 a just result. Id. The ultimate crite-
rion is one of reasonableness. Id. An appellate court is not
inclined to disturb the trial court’s award of alimony unless it
is patently unfair on the record. Id.
Lynne argues an award of alimony in gross is appropriate
given her artificially low living expenses, her inability to
meaningfully increase her earning capacity, and Larry’s seri-
ous health issues. She did not request alimony in gross during
the trial; rather, she raised the issue through her motion for
new trial and/or to alter or amend. Our review is for an abuse
of discretion.
At the time of dissolution, both parties were in their sev-
enties. During the marriage, Jeffers Farms provided housing
and paid for the parties’ living expenses. Larry and Lynne
both received Social Security benefits. Lynne also received
monthly payments from a retirement benefit and an out-
standing loan, and she had funds in an investment account.
Although Larry had received a monthly salary from Jeffers
Farms during the marriage, the testimony at trial was unclear
as to whether that would continue. Larry had health issues
that limited his ability to work. At the time of trial, Lynne was
working a part-time job, in part because of her attorney fees.

- 228 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
JEFFERS v. JEFFERS
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 221
In its decree of dissolution, the district court ordered Larry to
pay $5,000 toward Lynne’s attorney fees.
Neither party is supporting minor children, and both have
issues with continuing full-time employment due to age and/or
health. The parties each have additional sources of income
aside from what Jeffers Farms provided during the marriage.
Part of the reason Lynne sought employment was to pay her
attorney fees, and Larry was ordered to pay $5,000 toward
those fees. These should not be ongoing expenses. Based on
the circumstances of the parties and the general equities of the
situation, we cannot say the award was an abuse of discretion.
This includes the decision to order the alimony to terminate
upon the death of either party, Lynne’s remarriage, or the
expiration of the 48-month term.
We acknowledge that the Nebraska Supreme Court has
stated that serious health problems experienced by either party
may support an award of alimony that does not terminate
pursuant to the default provision of § 42-365. See Bauerle
v. Bauerle, 263 Neb. 881, 644 N.W.2d 128 (2002). However,
when reviewing an alimony award, we determine whether the
award is untenable such as to deprive a party of a substantial
right and a just result. See Scott v. Scott, 319 Neb. 877, 25
N.W.3d 439 (2025). Having reviewed the record, we cannot
say the district court abused its discretion in declining to award
Lynne alimony in gross. This assignment of error fails.
Jeffers Farms.
[9] Lynne assigns that the district court erred in finding the
appreciation in Jeffers Farms was passive and thus nonmari-
tal. We disagree. To begin our analysis, we recite the familiar
framework for dividing a marital estate. Equitable property
division under § 42-365 is a three-step process. Stava v. Stava,
318 Neb. 32, 13 N.W.3d 184 (2024). The first step is to classify
the parties’ property as marital or nonmarital. Id. The second
step is to value the marital assets and determine the parties’
marital liabilities. Id. The third step is to calculate and divide

- 229 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
JEFFERS v. JEFFERS
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 221
the net marital estate between the parties in accordance with
the principles contained in § 42-365. Stava, supra.
[10,11] 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 prop-
erty. Id. The burden of proof rests with the party claiming
that the property is nonmarital. Id. The extent to which the
property is marital versus nonmarital presents a mixed issue
of law and fact. Id. The manner and method of acquisition
involve questions of fact, but the classification of the property
under those facts is a legal question and not a matter of the
court’s discretion. Id. The second step, valuation, involves
questions of fact, and the third step, dividing the marital
estate in accordance with the principles of § 42-365, is a mat-
ter of discretion. Stava, supra.
[12] All 	property 	accumulated 	and 	acquired 	by 	either
spouse during the marriage is, as a general rule, part of the
marital estate. Id. The manner in which property is titled
or transferred by the parties during the marriage does not
restrict the trial court’s ability to determine how the property
should be divided in an action for dissolution of marriage. Id.
Appreciation, be it active or passive, in the marital interest is
always marital; it is simply part of the marital property. Id.
In contrast, property that a party brings into the marriage
is usually excluded from the marital estate. Id. The Supreme
Court has said that the equity in property at the time of mar-
riage is a nonmarital asset which, if established, should be set
aside as separate property. See id. This includes its passive
appreciation. Id.
[13] Separate property can become marital property through
active appreciation. See id. Active appreciation converts to
marital property only the increase in a nonmarital asset’s value
due to a contribution of marital funds or efforts. Id. This is
opposed to passive appreciation, which is appreciation caused
by separate contributions and nonmarital forces. Id.

- 230 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
JEFFERS v. JEFFERS
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 221
This issue involves the first step of the process and requires
us to determine whether any increase in the value of Jeffers
Farms was due to the active efforts of Larry or Lynne. This
step is complicated by the fact that Lynne relies solely upon
the corporation’s balance sheet summaries from 2010 and 2024
to determine the corporation’s value and its alleged appreci-
ation. See McReynolds v. McReynolds, 33 Neb. App. 733, 24
N.W.3d 906 (2025) (recognizing to determine value of closely
held corporation, trial court may consider nature of business,
corporation’s fixed and liquid assets at actual or book value,
corporation’s net worth, marketability of shares, past earnings
or losses, and future earning capacity; method of valuation
must have acceptable basis in fact and principle).
Lynne argues that the 2010 balance sheet summary reflects
a total equity of $2,242,360 and directs this court to the 2024
balance sheet, which reflects a total equity of $9,757,289. She
uses the difference between these amounts as the appreciated
value of the corporation. Lynne then compares the percentage
of shares Larry owned at the time of the marriage versus the
percentage owned in 2024 to determine what she alleges is
the increase in Larry’s interest in the corporation.
The balance sheet summaries reflect a real estate value
of $2,402,285 in 2010 and a value of $8,025,725 in 2024.
This accounts for $5,623,440 of the increased value, leaving
the remaining amount attributable to other assets. However,
the majority of the testimony focused on the increase in the
value of the real estate, although Cody testified that the corpo-
ration purchased equipment so he could farm some of the land.
No testimony was provided to explain the assets that comprised
the remaining increase or how they were valued.
In its order, the district court identified the “major issue” as
the treatment of the real estate. It concluded that any appreci-
ation in the land was passive and awarded it to Larry as non-
marital property. It summarily determined that Larry’s interest
in his revocable trust and in Jeffers Farms was nonmarital and
awarded it to him.

- 231 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
JEFFERS v. JEFFERS
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 221
The evidence at trial established that when Cody returned to
the farm in 2004, Larry ceased to be involved with decisions
regarding crops, cattle, and the business and financial aspects
of the corporation. Although certain updates were made to
the corporate homes and general maintenance was performed
on the land during the marriage, there were no significant
improvements made to the real estate that support a finding of
active appreciation. As noted above, the value of Jeffers Farms’
real estate as contained in annual balance sheets increased
from 2010 to 2023, but Cody attributed this as a reflection of
comparable sales in the county. Lynne testified that she con-
tributed to the corporation by cooking, delivering parts, and
providing childcare for Cody’s children. Cody disputed that
Lynne provided help for the corporation.
Lynne argues that there were active efforts to increase
Jeffers Farms’ value during the marriage, including the updates
to the corporate homes, the childcare she provided, and cer-
tain appliances she installed in the corporate home at the time
of marriage. Lynne argues that Jeffers Farms purchased new
equipment and that this was an active effort made to increase
the corporation’s value.
[14] Other than the balance sheets, there is little evidence
regarding the value of Jeffers Farms beyond the real estate.
Neither party valued the corporation beyond the net equity
stated on the balance sheet summaries. Larry denied the cor-
poration had increased in value beyond the appreciation in
the real estate. Just as the burden of proving the existence
of a debt is on the party who seeks to divide it, we hold
that the burden of proving an asset has appreciated is on the
party seeking to share in it. See White v. White, 320 Neb.
256, 26 N.W.3d 924 (2025) (affirming district court’s deter-
mination that husband failed to prove continued existence of
debt he sought to have divided). See, also, 1 Brett R. Turner,
Equitable Distribution of Property § 5:3 at 421 (4th ed. 2025)
(“[t]he burden of proving that interest exists on the facts is
always on the spouse who seeks to have the interest divided”).

- 232 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
JEFFERS v. JEFFERS
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 221
The burden to prove that the appreciation is nonmarital, how-
ever, remains on the person claiming its separate status. See
Stephens v. Stephens, 297 Neb. 188, 899 N.W.2d 582 (2017).
The district court here made no determination of the corpora-
tion’s value, nor its appreciation, if any, beyond the value of
the real estate it held.
Although we question whether Lynne met her burden of
proof that the corporation appreciated beyond the value of its
real estate, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s
order awarding Jeffers Farms to Larry as nonmarital property.
We agree with the district court that the items Lynne claimed
she personally performed do not constitute active efforts by
her to increase the value of the corporation and that opera-
tional decisions regarding the corporation were made by Cody,
not Larry.
We recognize that the evidence was in conflict; however,
choosing which evidence to believe was a credibility determi-
nation made by the district court. Lynne admits in her brief
that Larry “was largely retired” at the time certain acquisitions
were made but contends “there is no evidence in the record
saying that he had no say or part in the discussion to take
the company down this new path and incur a large amount of
debt.” Brief for appellant at 24. However, the district court
stated that “Larry’s testimony is credible regarding his non-
involvement in Jeffers Farms.” It found that “[t]he efforts that
Lynne testified to were not involved in aiding this increase”
in the real estate. We are mindful that when evidence is in
conflict, we consider and may give weight to the fact that the
trial court heard and observed the witnesses and accepted one
version of the facts rather than another. See Stava v. Stava,
318 Neb. 32, 13 N.W.3d 184 (2024).
Assuming Lynne proved the corporation had appreciated,
Larry bore the burden to establish that any increase in value
of Jeffers Farms was due to passive appreciation, and the dis-
trict court found he met that burden. The district court did not
err in this determination. Lynne has failed to show the district

- 233 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
JEFFERS v. JEFFERS
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 221
court abused its discretion in classifying the appreciation in
Jeffers Farms as nonmarital property. See Parde v. Parde,
313 Neb. 779, 986 N.W.2d 504 (2023). This assignment of
error fails.
Ownership Increase in Jeffers Farms.
Lynne argues that the district court erred in finding that
the increase in the ownership share of Jeffers Farms was non-
marital. We disagree. As discussed above, separate property
can become marital property through active appreciation. See
Stava, supra. If the increase in the ownership share of Jeffers
Farms was due to the active efforts of Larry or Lynne, then it
is part of the marital estate.
At the time of the marriage, Larry owned 75 percent of
Jeffers Farms’ shares, and after the 2018 stock redemption, this
increased to 86 percent. Larry could not recall exactly how the
decision to redeem Christopher’s shares was made. However,
the evidence established that when the redemption occurred in
2018, Larry had not been involved in the business and finan-
cial aspects of the corporation for several years. Rather, Cody
had “taken over.”
The Supreme Court has recognized, “Despite the impor-
tance of each employee in a company, a company’s value
for purposes of active appreciation is attributable only to the
efforts of first-tier management or similar persons with con-
trol over the asset’s value.” Stephens v. Stephens, 297 Neb.
188, 207, 899 N.W.2d 582, 596 (2017). We find this would
be equally applicable to an increase in ownership of a com-
pany, when the increase is not the result of decisions made
by either the husband or the wife. The evidence supports a
finding that Larry was not operating in the position of first-
tier management when the decision regarding Christopher’s
stock was made. Therefore, the increase in the percentage of
Larry’s ownership in Jeffers Farms, which resulted from the
retirement of Christopher’s stock, was not due to the active
efforts of Larry.

- 234 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
JEFFERS v. JEFFERS
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 221
Lynne does not contend that the increase in Larry’s owner-
ship of the corporation’s stock was due to any active efforts
by her; rather, she claims that because Larry knew how
the redemption price was set and because corporate profits
“earned throughout the course of the marriage” were used to
purchase the stock, the resulting increase was marital property.
Brief for appellant at 26. We disagree. Knowledge of how or
why a decision was made does not equate to making the deci-
sion itself. As set forth above, the evidence was sufficient to
support a determination that the retirement of Christopher’s
stock, which resulted in an increase in Larry’s ownership, was
not Larry’s decision.
Nor do we find that the use of corporate funds to purchase
the stock mandates a finding that the increased ownership was
marital. The undisputed evidence is that Cody was making the
financial decisions for the corporation and that the majority of
the corporation’s increased value was due to passive real estate
appreciation. We reject Lynne’s classification of corporate
profits as marital property. Despite Larry’s majority ownership
in the corporation, he relinquished any corresponding author-
ity to Cody. Therefore, we find no error in the district court’s
determination that the increase in Larry’s ownership, even with
the use of corporate funds, did not result in marital property.
This assignment of error fails.
CONCLUSION
The district court did not abuse its discretion in its award
of alimony or in its determination that Jeffers Farms and the
increase in Larry’s ownership shares of the corporation were
nonmarital property. We affirm the decree of the district court.
Affirmed.