Stava v. Stava

Summary

On the second appeal in this dissolution action, the Nebraska Supreme Court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing on remand, because the prior mandate did not require one and the record already contained every variable needed to apply the source of funds rule. The court clarified that payments on secured debt contribute only to the asset acquired with the borrowed funds and not to collateral, so the premaritally purchased land of both lots and its passive appreciation remained the husband's separate property, and it held that premarital equity must be counted as a separate contribution. Recomputing the marital interest in the Lot 14 improvements as $111,190.39, the court modified the equalization judgment to $145,929.20 owed by Larry to Carine and affirmed the decree as modified. Judge Cassel concurred in part and dissented in part, contending that the rule's evidentiary imprecision did not justify a dollar-exact modification.