Enforceability of Premarital Agreement Clauses Requiring Equal Division of the Entire Marital Estate

Introduction

Seemann v. Seemann, 318 Neb. 643 (2025), is a landmark Nebraska Supreme Court decision clarifying the scope of premarital agreements under the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act. Clint Seemann (appellee) and Lisa Seemann, now Lisa Newell (appellant), married in 2005 after executing a detailed premarital agreement (“the Agreement”). Following discovery of omitted assets and valuation errors in their original dissolution decree, the Supreme Court remanded for re-division of the marital estate. On remand, the district court divided the Agreement-listed assets equally but allocated the remainder unequally. The central issue on this second appeal was whether paragraph 8 of the Agreement—which states that “the assets of both parties listed in this agreement shall be considered as part of the marital property, which shall be divided equally in the event of death or divorce”—requires equal division of the entire marital estate or only the assets listed in the Agreement.

Summary of the Judgment

The Nebraska Supreme Court held that paragraph 8 unambiguously requires equal division of all marital property, not merely the assets enumerated in the Agreement. Applying contract-interpretation principles, the Court construed the clause introduced by “which” as nonrestrictive, supplementing rather than limiting the scope of equal division. Because the district court had failed to divide the entire estate equally, its amended decree was reversed and the case remanded with directions to effectuate an equal split.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

• De Novo and Abuse of Discretion Standards: Tierney v. Tierney, 309 Neb. 310, 959 N.W.2d 556 (2021) (appellate review of custody, support, property division de novo on the record; abuse of discretion if ruling is untenable).
• Contract and Ambiguity Rules:
  • Brush & Co. v. W. O. Zangger & Son, 314 Neb. 509, 991 N.W.2d 294 (2023) (questions of law: contract interpretation and ambiguity).
  • Wintroub v. Nationstar Mortgage, 303 Neb. 15, 927 N.W.2d 19 (2019) (determining ambiguity objectively).
• Marital Estate Principles:
  • Stava v. Stava, ante p. 32, 13 N.W.3d 184 (2024) (common law: property acquired during marriage is marital; premarital property excluded).
  • Stephens v. Stephens, 297 Neb. 188, 899 N.W.2d 582 (2017) (active-appreciation rule).
  • Parde v. Parde, 313 Neb. 779, 986 N.W.2d 504 (2023) (spouse generally entitled to one-third to one-half of marital estate).
• Uniform Premarital Agreement Act (§§ 42-1001 to 42-1011): Permits contracting around equitable division and defines enforceable terms as to property rights and post-dissolution disposition, subject to fair disclosure.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Court began by reaffirming that premarital agreements are treated as contracts and interpreted under ordinary contract law, with special statutory disclosure requirements. It then proceeded through the following steps:

1. Scope of Paragraph 8: The key provision reads, in full:

   “The assets of both parties listed in this agreement shall be considered as part of the marital property which shall be divided equally in the event of death or divorce. Marital property shall also include property that results from the efforts of CLINT and LISA during the marriage.”

2. Ambiguity Analysis: Under Nebraska law, ambiguity is determined objectively. The parties’ divergent interpretations do not alone create an ambiguity.
3. Restrictive vs. Nonrestrictive Construction:
   • A restrictive clause (introduced by “that” without commas) limits a noun to a subset (“the assets … that shall be divided equally” would carve out a special class).
   • A nonrestrictive clause (introduced by “which” with or without a comma) supplies supplemental information (“all marital property shall be divided equally”).
   The Court held that “which shall be divided equally in the event of death or divorce” is nonrestrictive, i.e., descriptive of the entire marital property rather than defining a special subcategory.
4. Avoiding Surplusage: Under principles of contract construction, no clause should be rendered meaningless. Reading paragraph 8 as applying only to listed assets would make the disclosure of general marital property superfluous and leave unresolved whether unlisted assets follow the same rule.
5. Statutory Backdrop: While equitable division under § 42-365 typically yields one-third to one-half shares, parties may contract around that default. The Agreement’s plain language superseded the default rule to mandate a 50/50 split of everything deemed “marital property.”

3. Impact

This decision underscores the importance of precise drafting in premarital agreements and affirms that:

• Plain-English Clauses Govern: Courts will enforce nonrestrictive clauses that clearly articulate parties’ intentions, even absent perfect punctuation.
• Parol-Evidence Rule Strengthened: Where language is unambiguous, courts will not admit extrinsic evidence or resort to equitable default rules to defeat clear contractual commitments.
• Drafting Cautions: Attorneys should use “that” vs. “which” deliberately and consider including commas to signal nonrestrictive clauses. They should also expressly state the scope of equal division—covering both listed and subsequently acquired marital assets—to avoid disputes.
• Future Marital Dissolutions: Trial courts must honor carefully negotiated premarital provisions that override Nebraska’s default property-division scheme, subject only to fair-disclosure challenges.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• De Novo on the Record: An appellate court reexamines both law and facts, making its own independent conclusions rather than deferring to the trial court.
• Active-Appreciation Rule: If a premarital (nonmarital) asset increases in value due to either spouse’s efforts during the marriage, that appreciation is generally marital property.
• Restrictive vs. Nonrestrictive Clauses:
  • Restrictive (“that …”) identifies which items qualify.
  • Nonrestrictive (“which …”) adds information without limiting scope.
• Equalization Payment: A cash transfer by one spouse to the other to correct imbalances after dividing property shares.

Conclusion

Seemann v. Seemann reinforces that clear contractual language in premarital agreements will be enforced as written. By construing paragraph 8’s “which shall be divided equally” clause as nonrestrictive, the Nebraska Supreme Court ensured that the entire marital estate, not just assets enumerated before marriage, is subject to a 50/50 split. The decision heightens the drafting discipline required of family law practitioners and signals to trial courts that properly executed premarital agreements can override statutory defaults on property division.