Bennett v. Bennett

- 309 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
BENNETT v. BENNETT
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 309
Daniel C. Bennett, appellee and cross-appellant,
v. DeeAnn J. Bennett, appellant
and cross-appellee.
___ N.W.3d ___
Filed June 2, 2026. 	No. A-25-214.
1. Divorce: Property Division: Alimony: Appeal and Error. In an
action for the dissolution of marriage, an appellate court reviews de
novo on the record the trial court’s determinations of property division
and alimony. These determinations are initially entrusted to the trial
court’s discretion and will normally be affirmed absent an abuse of
that discretion.
2. Divorce: Property Division: Appeal and Error. The date of valuation
of a marital estate is reviewed for an abuse of the trial court’s discretion.
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
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. The third
step is to calculate and divide the net marital estate equitably between
the parties.
4. ____: ____. Regarding classification of settlement funds, compensation
for past wages, medical expenses, and other items that compensate for
the diminution of the marital estate should equitably be included in
the marital estate as they properly replace losses of property created
by marital partnership. Compensation for an injury that a spouse has
or will receive for pain, suffering, disfigurement, disability, or loss of
postdivorce earning capacity should not equitably be included in the
marital estate.
5. Divorce: Property Division: Proof. The burden of proving that all or
a portion of the settlement is nonmarital rests on the spouse making
the claim.
Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
10/18/2026 12:40 AM CDT

- 310 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
BENNETT v. BENNETT
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 309
6. Divorce: Property Division. Nonmarital property becomes marital
when nonmarital property is inextricably mixed, or commingled, with
marital property. Nonmarital property remains nonmarital when it is
segregated or traceable into its product.
7. Divorce: Property Division: Equity. The purpose of assigning a date
of valuation in a dissolution decree is to ensure that the marital estate is
equitably divided.
8. Divorce: Property Division: Appeal and Error. The date upon which
a marital estate is valued must be rationally related to the property com-
posing the marital estate and the property being divided.
9. Divorce: Property Division: Taxes. Income tax liability incurred dur-
ing the marriage is one of the accepted costs of producing marital
income, and thus, income tax liability should generally be treated as a
marital debt.
10. Divorce: Property Division: Proof. The burden to show that a debt is
nonmarital is on the party making that assertion.
11. Divorce: Property Division. There is no mathematical formula by
which property awards can be precisely determined, but, generally, a
spouse should be awarded one-third to one-half of the marital estate, the
polestar being fairness and reasonableness as determined by the facts of
each case.
12. ____: ____. In addition to the specific criteria listed in Neb. Rev. Stat.
§ 42-365 (Reissue 2016), a court should consider the income and earn-
ing capacity of each party and the general equities of the situation.
13. 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.
14. 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.
Appeal from the District Court for Lincoln County: Michael
E. Piccolo, Judge. Affirmed as modified.
Kyle J. Long, of Simmons Olsen Law Firm, P.C., L.L.O.,
for appellant.
Timothy P. Brouillette, of Brouillette, Troshynski, Kingston
& Jackson, P.C., L.L.O., for appellee.

- 311 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
BENNETT v. BENNETT
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 309
Riedmann, Chief Judge, and Pirtle and Freeman, Judges.
Freeman, Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
DeeAnn J. Bennett appeals from the decree entered by the
district court for Lincoln County, Nebraska, dissolving her
marriage to Daniel C. Bennett. DeeAnn argues that the district
court erred in its valuing of one of Daniel’s bank accounts.
Daniel cross-appeals. Daniel argues that the district court
erred in classifying a portion of his settlement funds as marital,
classifying his 2023 tax debt as nonmarital, and awarding ali-
mony. For the reasons explained below, we affirm the district
court’s order as modified.
II. BACKGROUND
Daniel and DeeAnn were married on November 15, 2003.
Daniel filed his complaint for dissolution of marriage on
August 7, 2023. The parties have two children, both of whom
were adults at the time of trial and entry of the decree.
Trial was held on January 13, 2025. At trial, the par-
ties adduced the following testimony and evidence regarding
Daniel’s Union Pacific Railroad (Union Pacific) settlement,
Daniel’s 2023 tax debt, and alimony.
1. Union Pacific Settlement
For the past 17 years, Daniel has worked as a Union Pacific
machinist. His wrist was injured while employed. As a result
of his injury, Daniel is unable to bend his wrist. He briefly
stopped working at Union Pacific from June 19, 2022, until
early February 2023. In April 2023, he was cleared by his doc-
tor to resume all regular activities.
Daniel testified that, in settlement negotiations with Union
Pacific, “I told them when everything is said and done[,]
to make me happy for my injury and the pain that I still go
through every day[,] I want a check for $120,000 in my bank
account.” He further stated, “So that’s why they were willing

- 312 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
BENNETT v. BENNETT
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 309
. . . to pay me that amount[,] so they know they don’t have
to pay for another surgery on this wrist anymore.” Daniel
received a total settlement of $150,000 from Union Pacific
due to his wrist injury. An apportionment agreement page
was received into evidence. The entire settlement agreement
was not offered at trial.
In the apportionment agreement, an amount was allocated
to “time lost” so that Daniel could receive credit for months of
service toward retirement. The apportionment agreement stated
that $18,531.20 of the settlement was apportioned to “time
lost.” Daniel was unsure how $18,531.20 was calculated.
The remaining portion of the settlement was for “other fac-
tors.” Daniel stated that this portion was for pain and suffering
and for any other future medical expenses associated with his
wrist. The amount of $12,474 of the settlement was withheld
to pay the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board for the Railroad
Unemployment Insurance Act benefits that were paid. Before
the funds were deposited, Daniel made an additional payment
of $2,325.67 to the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board for taxes
associated with the time lost.
Daniel received a net settlement of $123,770.52 that was
deposited into the parties’ Platte Valley Bank (Platte Valley)
joint checking account on May 30, 2023. The $123,770.52 was
listed as “Non-Cash Earnings” on Daniel’s paystub. Around the
same time, additional income was going into the Platte Valley
joint checking account from other sources.
After the funds were deposited, Daniel stated that about
$20,000 was used to pay DeeAnn’s credit cards and about
$25,000 was used to pay his credit cards. For the month of
June 2023, the Platte Valley joint checking account had total
debits of $128,697.66.
Daniel testified, “[W]e needed to get some of this money
out of the checking account so we wouldn’t blow it all, and
[I had] her put a little of it in the savings account.” On June
9, 2023, Daniel withdrew $38,000 from the Platte Valley joint
checking account and placed it into the parties’ joint Wells

- 313 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
BENNETT v. BENNETT
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 309
Fargo account that no longer existed at the time of trial. On
June 12, $37,000 was transferred from the Platte Valley joint
checking account to a Platte Valley savings account held only
in DeeAnn’s name that Daniel was able to access.
On August 2, 2023, Daniel withdrew $35,000 from the
Wells Fargo account, which amount he testified was settle-
ment funds. Daniel stated that he placed the $35,000 into a
new bank account at First National Bank of Omaha (FNBO),
which account was held solely in his name. Around the begin-
ning of August, Daniel transferred $25,000 from DeeAnn’s
Platte Valley savings account back into their Platte Valley joint
checking account, which he then transferred into his FNBO
account. His FNBO account also contained a $10,000 gift from
his father. Daniel offered a few screenshots and statements in
support of his testimony regarding the transactions.
Daniel testified that his FNBO account had approximately
$16,594.92 on the date of trial. Daniel also acknowledged that
on the date he filed his complaint for dissolution of marriage,
he had approximately $70,000 in his FNBO account.
Because of “the absence of more substantive proof,” the
district court classified the settlement funds as marital. The
district court recognized the apportionment agreement did not
specify whether the funds were for economic or noneconomic
losses. The district court also observed that Daniel was cleared
to return to work with no restrictions or limitations and to
resume all regular activities. Even if the settlement funds were
found to be nonmarital, the district court determined that there
was insufficient tracing to find any remaining settlement funds
as nonmarital.
The district court identified the date the complaint for
dissolution of marriage was filed, or August 2023, as the
valuation date it would use for valuing property and resolving
disputes. Notwithstanding, the district court awarded Daniel’s
FNBO account to Daniel at a value on the trial date of
$16,594.92.

- 314 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
BENNETT v. BENNETT
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 309
2. Tax Debt
Daniel testified that the parties “didn’t file joint taxes last
year.” As a result, Daniel owed approximately $6,250 for taxes.
The district court did not include the tax debt in the marital
estate because it arose after the parties separated.
3. Alimony
At trial, DeeAnn pursued a claim for alimony. Both parties
were in their midfifties. The parties each testified to their edu-
cation and employment experience.
(a) Daniel’s Testimony
Daniel has a bachelor’s degree in education and some weld-
ing certifications. Daniel testified that when he first married
DeeAnn, she was employed full time at about the same wages
as him. According to Daniel, the parties had equal earnings for
about the first 5 years of their marriage.
Daniel stated that DeeAnn received an associate’s degree
in a licensed practical nurse (LPN) program in 2002 or 2003.
However, DeeAnn never practiced as a nurse, because she
stayed home to take care of their ill son after he was born in
2005. But considering the entire marriage, Daniel testified that
the parties equally helped to raise the children while both par-
ties worked.
According to Daniel, DeeAnn currently has a cosmetology
license, and at one point during their marriage, she had a lease
on a hair salon for a few years.
In January 2019, Daniel moved to North Platte, Nebraska,
to continue working for Union Pacific. DeeAnn and the chil-
dren did not move to North Platte so that the children could
graduate from high school in Gering, Nebraska. Though the
parties were living separately, Daniel continued to pay their
marital expenses.
While Daniel testified to being employed at Union Pacific,
he was not currently working because of several health
concerns. At the time of trial, he had not worked at Union
Pacific since July 2024. He is unable to return to work until

- 315 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
BENNETT v. BENNETT
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 309
his treatment is completed. He testified he hoped to go back
to work any day once he is cleared by his doctors. He would
like to continue working at Union Pacific until his retirement.
Daniel claimed that DeeAnn was “fairly healthy,” except for
some thyroid and blood pressure issues.
In 	total, 	Daniel 	claimed 	approximately 	$6,289.21 	in
monthly expenses. His 2024 paystubs reflected a monthly
gross income of approximately $7,478. Daniel listed his gross
monthly income at $10,580 and his net monthly income at
$7,480 in his interrogatories from December 2023. Daniel’s
tax returns received into evidence revealed he made a gross
monthly income of approximately $8,888 in 2022 and $11,801
in 2021. Daniel proposed that he pay DeeAnn $500 a month
in alimony for 5 years.
(b) DeeAnn’s Testimony
DeeAnn testified that she stayed home to take care of their
son for 2 years. Although she has an associate’s degree in an
LPN program, DeeAnn is unable to “sit[] for the boards” to
become an LPN because too much time has passed. She would
have to complete the whole course over again to become
licensed. DeeAnn also does not currently make money from
her cosmetology license, nor could she, because working as a
hairdresser causes her back pain.
DeeAnn testified that she works both a full-time job and a
part-time job in Gering. In the future, she did not expect to
earn as much at her part-time job because her employer lost
a contract.
In total, DeeAnn claimed that she made $3,783 in monthly
income and that Daniel made $11,254 in monthly income. She
claimed approximately $4,872 in monthly expenses. DeeAnn
proposed that she receive $1,000 a month in alimony for
10 years.
(c) District Court’s Ruling
The district court found Daniel’s expenses to be $3,755.
The district court relied on Daniel’s interrogatory answers in

- 316 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
BENNETT v. BENNETT
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 309
determining that he made $10,580 in gross monthly income
and $7,480 in net monthly income. Therefore, Daniel had
approximately $3,725 in disposable income. While Daniel was
not working at the time of trial due to medical issues, the dis-
trict court noted that Daniel expected and desired to return to
work soon.
The 	district 	court 	found 	that 	DeeAnn’s 	gross 	monthly
income was $4,228 with approximate net income of $3,473.
While DeeAnn estimated her expenses at $4,872, the district
court “discounted some of DeeAnn’s monthly expenses based
on the logical premise that the adult children are beneficiaries”
because the adult children live with her.
The district court found that Daniel had disposable income
and that DeeAnn’s expenses exceeded her income. The court
also determined that it was unlikely that DeeAnn would be able
to earn more in her preretirement years based on her employ-
ment history.
Regarding the relevant factors, the district court found that
the contributions to the marriage favored Daniel’s position.
However, according to the district court, the length of the
marriage, the disparity of the incomes, and the relative eco-
nomic circumstances in this case favored an award of alimony
closer to DeeAnn’s request. The district court also found that
Daniel had “dutifully paid temporary alimony of $1,000.00
for 16 consecutive months.” Ultimately, the district court
ordered Daniel to pay DeeAnn $1,000 a month in alimony for
90 additional months.
4. Motions for New Trial
After the district court entered its decree of dissolution of
marriage, both parties moved for new trial or, in the alterna-
tive, to alter or amend the decree. Daniel argued that he should
have been given credit for the tax debt that was incurred dur-
ing the marriage and that his remaining settlement funds were
nonmarital. DeeAnn argued that the FNBO account should

- 317 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
BENNETT v. BENNETT
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 309
have been valued at $70,062.76, based on the valuation date of
August 2023.
The district court rejected Daniel’s argument that the tax
debt was marital. The district court found that the tax debt was
nonmarital because it was incurred postseparation. The dis-
trict court supported its determination with the reasoning that
Daniel’s tax debt was incurred from his separate filing and is
solely his responsibility.
Additionally, 	the 	district 	court 	rejected 	Daniel’s 	argu-
ment that the settlement funds were nonmarital. The district
court relied upon the apportionment agreement language that
stated, “It is agreed that the above apportionment is made
only for provisions of the Railroad Retirement Act, Railroad
Unemployment Insurance Act and the Railroad Retirement
Tax Act relating to ‘time lost,’ and for no other purpose . . . .”
Based on this language, the district court determined the agree-
ment did not contemplate a noneconomic loss. Therefore, the
remaining settlement funds were marital.
The district court rejected DeeAnn’s argument that the dis-
trict court should have used the August 2023 valuation date
for Daniel’s FNBO account because it found that it would be
inequitable to accept the higher balance on August 2023, since
a significant portion of the settlement funds were used to pay
marital debt.
DeeAnn appeals, and Daniel cross-appeals.
III. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
Both parties assign, restated, that the district court erred in
the equitable division of a portion of Daniel’s settlement funds.
Daniel separately assigns, restated and reordered, that the
district court erred in (1) classifying his 2023 tax debt as non-
marital and (2) awarding alimony.
IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW
[1] In an action for the dissolution of marriage, an appel-
late court reviews de novo on the record the trial court’s

- 318 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
BENNETT v. BENNETT
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 309
determinations of property division and alimony. See Backhaus
v. Backhaus, 318 Neb. 891, 20 N.W.3d 81 (2025). These deter-
minations are initially entrusted to the trial court’s discretion
and will normally be affirmed absent an abuse of that discre-
tion. See id.
[2] The date of valuation is reviewed for an abuse of the trial
court’s discretion. Radmanesh v. Radmanesh, 315 Neb. 393,
996 N.W.2d 592 (2023).
A judicial abuse of discretion exists if the reasons or rul-
ings of a trial judge are clearly untenable, unfairly depriving a
litigant of a substantial right and denying just results in mat-
ters submitted for disposition. Backhaus v. Backhaus, supra.
When evidence is in conflict, the appellate 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. Id.
V. ANALYSIS
[3] Before we begin, we set out the legal framework for
evaluating an equitable division of property. Neb. Rev. Stat.
§ 42-365 (Reissue 2016) authorizes a trial court to equita-
bly distribute the marital estate according to what is fair and
reasonable under the circumstances. Backhaus v. Backhaus,
supra. In a marital dissolution action, the equitable division
of property is a three-step process. Id. The first step is to
classify the parties’ property as either marital or nonmarital,
setting aside the nonmarital property or nonmarital portion
of the property to the party who brought the property to the
marriage. 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
generally a legal question. See id. The second step is to value
the marital assets and marital liabilities of the parties. Id. The
third step is to calculate and divide the net marital estate equi-
tably between the parties. See id.

- 319 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
BENNETT v. BENNETT
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 309
1. Union Pacific Settlement
(a) Marital or Nonmarital Classification
Daniel assigns and argues, combined, that the balance of
the FNBO account was traced to the Union Pacific settle-
ment which the district court erroneously classified as marital
property. We agree the district court abused its discretion in
its classification of the settlement funds but find no abuse
of discretion in its determination that Daniel failed to trace
the proceeds.
In determining that the settlement funds were marital, the
district court relied on the apportionment agreement language
that stated, “It is agreed that the above apportionment is made
only for provisions of the Railroad Retirement Act, Railroad
Unemployment Insurance Act and the Railroad Retirement Tax
Act relating to ‘time lost,’ and for no other purpose . . . .” We
note that what “time lost” is or how it was calculated was not
made clear from the record. However, if we use this language
to conclude that there was no noneconomic purpose for the
settlement, then we fail to recognize that a portion of the funds
was allocated to “other factors,” which, according to Daniel,
represented pain and suffering. When reading the agreement as
a whole, it is reasonable to conclude that some of the remain-
ing funds for “other factors” included a noneconomic purpose.
See Lassalle v. State, 307 Neb. 221, 948 N.W.2d 725 (2020)
(finding contract must receive reasonable construction and
must be construed as whole, and if possible, effect must be
given to every part of contract).
[4] Regarding classification of settlement funds, compensa-
tion for past wages, medical expenses, and other items that
compensate for the diminution of the marital estate should
equitably be included in the marital estate as they properly
replace losses of property created by marital partnership. See
Marshall v. Marshall, 298 Neb. 1, 902 N.W.2d 223 (2017).
Compensation for an injury that a spouse has or will receive
for pain, suffering, disfigurement, disability, or loss of post-
divorce earning capacity should not equitably be included in

- 320 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
BENNETT v. BENNETT
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 309
the marital estate. Id. It is not at all uncommon for personal
injury settlement agreements to be silent regarding allocation,
and we soundly reject any suggestion that such silence compels
the conclusion that the entire settlement must be classified as
marital property. Id.
District court judges are well acquainted with personal
injury evidence and damages and are called upon regularly to
determine and allocate such damages. Id. Neither mathematical
allocation of settlement proceeds nor expert testimony as to
allocation is required as trial courts instead allocate damages
based on personal testimony and other evidence. See id.
[5] The burden of proving that all or a portion of the settle-
ment is nonmarital rests on the spouse making the claim. Id.
The burden of proof in civil cases requires only the greater
weight of the evidence. See Backhaus v. Backhaus, 318 Neb.
891, 20 N.W.3d 81 (2025). The greater weight of the evidence
means evidence sufficient to make a claim more likely true
than not true. Id. If the burden is not met, the presumption
remains that the proceeds from the settlement are marital prop-
erty. Marshall v. Marshall, supra.
The Nebraska Supreme Court discussed a similar settle-
ment division in Parde v. Parde, 258 Neb. 101, 602 N.W.2d
657 (1999). The husband in Parde v. Parde, supra, worked for
the railroad and received a settlement due to a work-related
injury. The cash payment from the settlement was apportioned
into two components: “‘time lost’” and “‘other factors.’” Id.
at 103, 602 N.W.2d at 659. The wife argued that the husband
failed to prove by direct evidence what amount was spe-
cifically designated for nonmarital purposes. Parde v. Parde,
supra. However, because the husband provided evidence of
the value of past marital wages, the court determined that the
remaining portion was nonmarital. See id.
Regardless of the computation used to determine the mari-
tal amount of the settlement funds, the court determined that
the marital estate received substantially more funds than
what was needed to compensate for past marital wages. See

- 321 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
BENNETT v. BENNETT
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 309
id. As a result, the marital estate received a windfall. See id.
The court determined that classifying any remaining funds as
marital would deprive the husband of a “substantial right and
a just result.” Id. at 112, 602 N.W.2d at 664 (citing Bondi v.
Bondi, 255 Neb. 319, 586 N.W.2d 145 (1998)).
Likewise, here, Daniel received settlement funds appor-
tioned to “time lost” and “other factors.” Daniel was unable
to prove by direct evidence what amount of the settle-
ment was specifically designated for nonmarital purposes. He
claimed that the remaining portion for “other factors” was for
pain and suffering and for any other future medical expenses
associated with his wrist. Daniel testified that Union Pacific
settled with him to avoid having to pay any future medical
expenses. These other factors did not diminish the marital
estate and support the idea that a portion of the settlement
was nonmarital.
Therefore, based on our de novo review, we determine a
portion of the settlement funds was nonmarital, so the district
court abused its discretion in finding otherwise. However,
the district court further determined that there was insuf-
ficient tracing of the remaining settlement funds to set aside
as nonmarital.
[6] Nonmarital property becomes marital when nonmarital
property is inextricably mixed, or commingled, with marital
property. See White v. White, 320 Neb. 256, 26 N.W.3d 924
(2025). Nonmarital property remains nonmarital when it is
segregated or traceable into its product. See id.
On May 30, 2023, $123,770.52 of settlement funds were
deposited into the Platte Valley joint checking account. Daniel
testified that most of this money was used on marital debts.
For the month of June, the Platte Valley joint checking account
had more debits, a total of $128,697.66, than the settle-
ment funds deposited. From there, Daniel stated he withdrew
some money to not “blow it all” and placed it in various
accounts, including another joint account and an account only
in DeeAnn’s name.

- 322 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
BENNETT v. BENNETT
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 309
While Daniel offered some proof of tracing, we find that
the district court’s determination that the funds were not
traceable was not clearly untenable based on the significant
transactions that occurred in the Platte Valley joint check-
ing account and the various placements of funds. Daniel also
offered very little evidence regarding the transaction history
of the accounts the funds were transferred between, except
for a few screenshots and statements. Therefore, the district
court did not err in classifying the FNBO account as marital
because any nonmarital portion became commingled with
marital property.
(b) Date of Valuation
We will next address the date of valuation of the remaining
settlement funds in the FNBO account.
DeeAnn argues that the FNBO account should be valued at
$60,000 as of the date of filing, or August 2023. She argues
that the $60,000 was marital property as it was derived from
the remainder of Daniel’s marital settlement funds or at least
was commingled with marital property. She concedes that the
$10,000 gift from Daniel’s father was nonmarital.
The district court valued the FNBO account at $16,594.92
as of the date of trial, January 2025. Daniel concedes that a
majority of the settlement funds were used for marital debt
and is requesting only that the remaining funds left to him be
considered nonmarital.
[7,8] The purpose of assigning a date of valuation in
a dissolution decree is to ensure that the marital estate is
equitably divided. Radmanesh v. Radmanesh, 315 Neb. 393,
996 N.W.2d 592 (2023). It is well settled that, generally, the
date upon which a marital estate is valued must be rationally
related to the property composing the marital estate and
the property being divided. See id. We have declined to tie
the hands of the district court and mandate that it must use
only one particular valuation date in equitably dividing the
marital estate. Id.

- 323 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
BENNETT v. BENNETT
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 309
In Rohde v. Rohde, 303 Neb. 85, 927 N.W.2d 37 (2019),
the Nebraska Supreme Court found that the district court did
not abuse its discretion when it used various valuation dates
because the valuation dates were rationally related to the
property. Some property was valued at the date of separation
because the assets no longer benefited both parties. See id.
Other property was valued at the date of trial because the assets
were being used by both parties until the time of trial. See id.
Each reason was rationally related to the property. See id.
Here, the district court found that it would be inequitable to
accept the higher balance in August 2023 because a significant
portion of the settlement funds were used for marital debt. By
not attributing Daniel with the $60,000 valued in August 2023,
the district court implicitly awarded Daniel a nonmarital por-
tion of his settlement.
Therefore, we find no abuse of discretion by the district
court because there was a rational basis to value the FNBO
account as of the date of trial, or January 2025.
2. Tax Debt
Daniel argues that his tax debt should have been included in
the marital estate.
The district court did not make a specific finding of when
the tax debt occurred, only that it arose postseparation. The
parties were married but living separately beginning in 2019,
and Daniel filed the present action in August 2023. Daniel
testified the tax debt was due to the filing from “last year,”
or 2024. DeeAnn claimed the debt resulted from the 2023
tax return filing. No tax returns were submitted to the district
court from either 2023 or 2024. From our de novo review, we
determine that the tax debt occurred from Daniel’s 2023 tax
returns that were filed in 2024. At the time of trial in January
2025, it would be unreasonable to assume that Daniel meant to
refer to his 2024 taxes.
As such, Daniel’s tax debt arose due to his 2023 income.
The district court determined that the tax debt was nonmarital

- 324 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
BENNETT v. BENNETT
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 309
because it was incurred postseparation and because it was
incurred from Daniel’s separate tax filing that was solely
his responsibility.
We have expressly declined to adopt a rule requiring that
debts must be incurred before separation to be considered mar-
ital. Radmanesh v. Radmanesh, supra. Even though the parties
were living separately, they still operated as if they were mar-
ried, as Daniel continued to pay for marital debts. Therefore,
the fact that the tax debt was incurred postseparation does
not support the district court’s determination to classify the
entire tax debt as nonmarital. Additionally, a separate tax filing
in itself does not make a tax debt nonmarital. See Meints v.
Meints, 258 Neb. 1017, 608 N.W.2d 564 (2000).
[9,10] Income tax liability incurred during the marriage is
one of the accepted costs of producing marital income, and
thus, income tax liability should generally be treated as a
marital debt. Id. The burden to show that a debt is nonmarital
is on the party making that assertion. Kauk v. Kauk, 310 Neb.
329, 966 N.W.2d 45 (2021). DeeAnn did not provide any other
evidence to support her burden of proving the tax debt was
nonmarital. Therefore, the district court abused its discretion in
excluding the tax debt from the marital estate.
The next step is to value the marital debt. Marital debt can
be a mixture of marital property and nonmarital property. See
Seemann v. Seemann, 316 Neb. 671, 6 N.W.3d 502 (2024). By
using the valuation date of August 2023, we determine Daniel
accumulated marital income and tax debt for 7 out of the 12
months in 2023. See Edmonds v. Edmonds, No. A-13-051,
2013 WL 5976336 (Neb. App. Nov. 12, 2013) (selected for
posting to court website) (prorating debt). Therefore, seven-
twelfths of $6,250, or $3,646, is a marital debt to be credited
to Daniel.
3. Equitable Distribution
[11] The third step is to calculate and divide the net marital
estate equitably between the parties. There is no mathematical

- 325 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
BENNETT v. BENNETT
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 309
formula by which property awards can be precisely deter-
mined, but, generally, a spouse should be awarded one-third to
one-half of the marital estate, the polestar being fairness and
reasonableness as determined by the facts of each case. Scott v.
Scott, 319 Neb. 877, 25 N.W.3d 439 (2025).
The division of the marital estate, limited to the modifica-
tions discussed above, is as follows:
Marital Estate: 	Daniel 	DeeAnn
Net Assets 	$112,847.57 	$170,281.70
Prorated 2023 Tax
Debt
(3,646.00)
Debts Per Decree 	(65,695.00) 	(135,480.31)
Net Marital Estate 	43,506.57 	34,801.39
Modified
Equalization
Payment
(4,352.59) 	4,352.59
Adjusted Net
Marital Estate
39,153.98 	39,153.98
We have modified Daniel’s equalization payment to DeeAnn
as shown above. With these modifications, the property divi-
sion conforms to the general rule that a spouse should be
awarded one-third to one-half of the marital estate. We affirm
the district court’s property distribution as modified above.
4. Alimony
[12,13] Finally, Daniel argues that the district court erred in
its award of alimony.
Section 42-365 states, in part:
When dissolution of a marriage is decreed, the court
may order payment of such alimony by one party to the
other and division of property as may be reasonable, having
regard for the circumstances of the parties, duration of the

- 326 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
BENNETT v. BENNETT
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 309
marriage, a history of the contributions to the marriage
by each party, including contributions to the care and
education of the children, and interruption of personal
careers or educational opportunities, and the ability of the
supported party to engage in gainful employment without
interfering with the interests of any minor children in the
custody of such party.
In addition to the specific criteria listed in § 42-365, a court
should consider the income and earning capacity of each party
and the general equities of the situation. Scott v. Scott, supra.
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. Id.
[14] 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 criterion is one of rea-
sonableness. 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.
Specifically, Daniel argues that DeeAnn did not establish
evidence of contributing to the marriage or that she was unable
to engage in more gainful employment. Daniel further argues
that the district court failed to account for his decreased earn-
ing capacity and erred in the duration of alimony.
DeeAnn established evidence that she contributed to the
marriage. The district court specifically found that for 2 years
DeeAnn took care of the children full time due to their ill son.
And when Daniel moved for work in 2019 while the rest of
the family stayed in Gering, DeeAnn became the primary care-
taker, according to the district court.
However, despite these factual concessions, the district
court concluded that the contributions to the marriage weighed
in favor of no alimony being awarded. While the district
court’s reasoning may not be untenable, contributions to the

- 327 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
BENNETT v. BENNETT
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 309
marriage is only one of the factors in § 42-365 that the district
court regards.
We 	question 	whether 	Daniel 	adequately 	assigned 	that
DeeAnn failed to establish that she was unable to engage in
more gainful employment, but regardless, this argument fails.
The district court found that it was unlikely that DeeAnn
would be able to earn more in her preretirement years based
on her employment history, which included the years she aban-
doned her prospect to be licensed as an LPN to care for their
ill son. The district court’s reasoning was not untenable.
Contrary to Daniel’s argument, the district court consid-
ered his economic circumstances. The district court used the
income amount that Daniel stated in his interrogatories from
December 2023 in determining alimony. While Daniel’s cur-
rent paystubs from 2024 reflected a lesser income, Daniel had
not been working from July 2024 until the time of trial. Even
though Daniel was not working due to medical treatment, the
district court noted that Daniel expected and desired to return
to work soon. It was not untenable for the district court to use
the income amount Daniel listed in his interrogatories from
2023. The income listed in the interrogatories was also less
than what Daniel had made historically. Further, Daniel had
successfully made 16 months of alimony payments at $1,000
even while unable to work. See Wiedel v. Wiedel, 300 Neb.
13, 911 N.W.2d 582 (2018) (finding ability to pay temporary
alimony supports conclusion that party has ability to pay per-
manent alimony).
Lastly, Daniel argues that the district court erred in the dura-
tion of the alimony award. The primary purpose of alimony is
to assist an ex-spouse for a period of time necessary for that
individual to secure his or her own means of support. Seemann
v. Seemann, 316 Neb. 671, 6 N.W.3d 502 (2024). Above all
else, the duration of an alimony award must be reasonable in
light of this purpose. Gress v. Gress, 274 Neb. 686, 743 N.W.2d
67 (2007). Though the district court did not state its reasoning
for the duration of the alimony, the district court found that

- 328 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
BENNETT v. BENNETT
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 309
DeeAnn’s earning capacity was not likely to increase during
her remaining preretirement years. As such, DeeAnn was inca-
pable of securing her own means of support before retirement.
The district court’s alimony award for 90 months’ duration can
be inferred to reasonably relate to the remaining years both
parties have before retirement. We find the district court’s
duration of alimony is reasonable.
Therefore, the district court did not err in its award of
alimony.
VI. CONCLUSION
We conclude that the district court did not err in ultimately
classifying Daniel’s FNBO account as marital due to com-
mingling. The district court abused its discretion in classify-
ing Daniel’s whole tax debt as nonmarital. The district court’s
property division is affirmed as modified above.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in its award of
alimony.
Affirmed as modified.