Establishing Nonmarital Inheritance by Testimony Alone: Backhaus v. Backhaus

Introduction

Backhaus v. Backhaus, 318 Neb. 891 (2025), clarifies the evidentiary standard for classifying inherited funds as nonmarital property in Nebraska divorce proceedings. Sarah A. Backhaus (appellant) and David R. Backhaus (appellee) were married in 2010, separated in February 2021, and divorced following litigation over the character of funds held in a jointly‐titled savings account (account x4020). The sole dispute on appeal was whether account x4020 contained David’s nonmarital inheritance or whether it formed part of the marital estate subject to equitable division.

Key issues:

1. Whether credible testimony alone, without documentary backup, can carry the burden of proving that inherited funds in a joint account are nonmarital.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in requiring more detailed proof of amount, timing, and deposit history than the greater‐weight‐of‐evidence standard demands.

Summary of the Judgment

The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and confirmed the trial court’s decree classifying all funds in account x4020 as David’s nonmarital inheritance. Applying Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 and Nebraska precedent, the Court held that:

• David met his burden under the greater‐weight‐of‐the‐evidence standard by credible testimony alone, corroborated by circumstantial evidence.
• No rigid requirement exists for documentary proof of the inheritance’s precise amount or deposit history.
• Circumstantial indicators—account balances, parties’ incomes, sale proceeds of the marital home, and patterns of expenditure—supported the conclusion that account x4020 comprised inherited, nonmarital funds.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

1. Onstot v. Onstot, 298 Neb. 897 (2018): confirms that appellate review of property division is de novo on the record but respects the trial court’s discretionary findings absent abuse.
2. Parde v. Parde, 313 Neb. 779 (2023): outlines the three‐step process for equitable division—classification, valuation, and distribution—under § 42-365.
3. Stava v. Stava, ante p. 32 (2024): treats classification of marital versus nonmarital property as a mixed question of law and fact.
4. Burgardt v. Burgardt, 304 Neb. 356 (2019): held that credible testimony, without documentary corroboration, may suffice to prove nonmarital inheritance by the greater weight of the evidence.

Legal Reasoning

The Court reaffirmed that Nebraska law presumes all assets acquired during marriage are marital, except gifts and inheritances, which are nonmarital unless the claimant fails to prove otherwise. The burden rests on the party asserting nonmarital status, and proof by the “greater weight of the evidence” requires only that the facts be more probable than not.

Here, David’s uncontradicted testimony described the source (sale of family land in Taiwan), the timeframe (during marriage), and the use of funds (education, vehicles, business build‐outs). Exhibit 10 showed a February 2021 balance of $323,571.70 in account x4020. Although David’s attempt to introduce multi‐year bank statements failed, the trial judge credited his testimony and inferred from the parties’ incomes, debts, and proceeds from home sale that no other source justified such a balance in a joint account. The Supreme Court held that demanding documentary “best evidence” or precise calculations would be inconsistent with Burgardt.

Impact

Backhaus v. Backhaus will guide trial courts to:

• Afford respectful deference to credible witness testimony on inheritance issues.
• Avoid imposing an inflexible documentary‐only rule when circumstantial context suffices.
• Reaffirm that nonmarital classification can rest on a preponderance of testimonial plus circumstantial evidence.

Lower courts can now more confidently set apart inherited assets—even in joint accounts—when documentary records are incomplete but credible narrative and financial context align.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• De Novo on the Record: The appellate court re‐evaluates legal conclusions and facts, but gives weight to trial judges’ firsthand witness observations.
• Abuse of Discretion: A ruling is upheld unless it is “clearly untenable or unfair,” depriving a party of substantial rights.
• Greater Weight of the Evidence: Proof by preponderance—more likely true than not, not absolute certainty.
• Circumstantial Evidence: Indirect proof (e.g., income levels, spending patterns, account balances) that can be as persuasive as direct documents.
• Marital vs. Nonmarital Property: Nebraska presumes assets earned or acquired in marriage are marital, but gifts and inheritances stay with the recipient unless proven otherwise.

Conclusion

Backhaus v. Backhaus establishes that credible testimony, supported by circumstantial context, is sufficient to meet the statutory burden of proving inherited funds as nonmarital property. It ensures equitable application of § 42-365 without forcing parties to produce perfect documentary proof. This ruling preserves trial judges’ discretion, respects practical realities in family dissolutions, and will shape future characterizations of contested assets in Nebraska divorce law.