## Facts

- Jan K. Plog and Terrance L. Plog married in 1990 and later sought dissolution after a long-term marriage.
- Terrance, a veterinarian, owned and operated a veterinary clinic located on a roughly 70-acre tract known as the “Home Place,” which also included the parties’ residence.
- Terrance began purchasing the Home Place under an installment contract before the marriage and received it in his prior divorce; after the marriage, marital funds were used to make the final two installment payments.
- After the final payment, a warranty deed titled the Home Place in joint tenancy with Jan; Terrance testified he did not intend a gift.
- The parties acquired additional real estate during the marriage, and Terrance operated a cattle operation; both were included in the property division dispute.
- Terrance alleged Jan transferred marital funds to her brother and to her daughter (who used the Plog surname), constituting dissipation.
- The district court dissolved the marriage, divided property, awarded Jan alimony and attorney’s fees, found no dissipation by Jan, and denied Terrance’s motion for new trial.
- Terrance appealed the property division, dissipation finding, alimony, attorney’s fee award, and denial of his new-trial motion.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court properly classified, valued, and divided the marital estate, including the Home Place, other real estate parcels, and cattle.
2. Whether Jan dissipated marital assets through transfers to family members requiring inclusion of those amounts in the marital estate.
3. Whether the alimony award was an abuse of discretion given the parties’ finances and the correctness of the property division.
4. Whether the attorney’s fee award and denial of the motion for new trial constituted an abuse of discretion.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.
- It held the district court’s handling of the marital estate contained errors and lacked sufficiently clear findings on classification, valuation, and allocation of key assets (including real estate and cattle).
- It left undisturbed the district court’s determination that Jan did not dissipate marital assets, but directed the court on remand to address transfers and their effect on the marital-estate calculations consistent with governing standards.
- It reversed the alimony award and required reconsideration because alimony and property division are closely related and the underlying estate calculation was flawed.
- It remanded for additional findings and correction of the property division and for reevaluation of alimony in light of corrected valuations and allocations; fee issues were to be reconsidered as necessary in light of the revised outcomes.

## Legal Principles

- In dissolution actions, property division is reviewed de novo on the record and affirmed absent an abuse of discretion.
- Equitable property division under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 follows a three-step process: classify property as marital or nonmarital, value marital assets and liabilities, then compute and equitably divide the net marital estate.
- The ultimate test of a property division is fairness and reasonableness based on the case’s facts.
- Dissipation is a spouse’s use of marital property for a selfish purpose unrelated to the marriage when the marriage is undergoing an irretrievable breakdown; dissipated assets should be included in the marital estate.
- On execution of a real estate sale contract, equitable ownership vests in the buyer even if the seller retains legal title as security for installment payments.
- The manner of title during marriage does not control a dissolution court’s equitable division; the claimant bears the burden to prove property is nonmarital.
- Alimony and property division have different purposes but may require joint consideration; an alimony award may be reconsidered when the property division is corrected.

## Conclusion

The appellate court required a remand because the dissolution decree did not provide sufficiently clear and accurate findings supporting the classification, valuation, and distribution of major assets, and because the alimony award depended on those flawed calculations; the district court was directed to make explicit asset findings, correct and redistribute the marital estate (including any required treatment of transfers), and reassess alimony consistent with the revised economic picture.


Plog v. Plog, 824 N.W.2d 749 (Neb. Ct. App. 2012)