“Take the Money, Lose the Appeal” – Gentele v. Gentele Clarifies the Boundaries of Nebraska’s Acceptance-of-Benefits Rule

Introduction

Gentele v. Gentele, 319 Neb. 182 (2025), is the Nebraska Supreme Court’s latest word on the “acceptance-of-benefits” doctrine – a common-law principle that often lurks unnoticed in family-law appeals. The case arose from a contested divorce in which wife Tara Gentele (appellant) accepted a $100,000 equalization payment and half of the parties’ credit-card reward points immediately after entry of the decree, then challenged the decree on appeal.

The Court, per Papik, J., dismissed the appeal, holding that Tara’s voluntary receipt of benefits triggered the acceptance-of-benefits rule and none of the recognized exceptions applied. The decision tightens, clarifies, and to some extent re-calibrates Nebraska jurisprudence post-Liming v. Liming, 272 Neb. 534 (2006).

Summary of the Judgment

The district court found that the parties reached an enforceable mediated settlement and incorporated it into the divorce decree.
Under the decree, Christopher owed Tara $275,000 in installments, with $100,000 due within seven days, and each spouse received half of the parties’ credit-card reward points.
Tara cashed the $100,000 check and took the reward points, then filed a notice of appeal challenging enforcement of the settlement on two grounds: (1) no meeting of the minds; (2) violation of the statute of frauds (lack of signature).
Christopher moved to dismiss on acceptance-of-benefits grounds.
The Supreme Court held that Tara’s appeal was barred because she voluntarily accepted benefits whose validity could be undermined if the decree were reversed.
The Court dismissed the appeal without reaching the merits of the settlement-enforcement issues.

Detailed Analysis

1. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Hamilton County v. Bailey, 12 Neb. 56 (1881) – The Court’s first articulation of the rule: a party cannot accept a judgment’s benefits and simultaneously appeal from it. Gentele invokes this historical anchor to show the doctrine’s deep roots.
Liming v. Liming, 272 Neb. 534 (2006) – Modern leading case recognizing exceptions where (i) the benefit is “absolute” and cannot be altered on appeal, or (ii) the appellant accepts only what the appellee concedes as due and seeks something additional on appeal. Gentele distinguishes its facts from Liming and re-emphasizes how narrow those exceptions really are.
Seldin v. Estate of Silverman, 305 Neb. 185 (2020) – Restated the “general rule.” Cited for the contemporary formulation applied here.
Giese v. Giese, 243 Neb. 60 (1993) & Shiers v. Shiers, 240 Neb. 856 (1992) – Earlier cases failing to recognize the exceptions, expressly cabined in Liming. Their mention reinforces the path Nebraska law has taken.
Haggard v. Haggard, 550 S.W.2d 374 (Tex. App. 1977) – Cited merely for the idea that financial duress can negate voluntariness; used to show Tara did not claim duress.

2. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

Justice Papik’s opinion proceeds in a three-step syllogism:

(i) The acceptance-of-benefits rule bars appeals when an appellant voluntarily accepts any part of a judgment and then seeks reversal of that judgment.
(ii) Tara Gentele voluntarily accepted the $100,000 payment and reward points granted by the decree.
(iii) None of the narrow Liming exceptions apply because Christopher has not conceded her absolute entitlement to those benefits and a reversal could yield a different property division.
Therefore: the appeal must be dismissed.

Key to the result was the Court’s reading of Liming. Tara argued that, like the Liming appellant, she was simply seeking “a larger piece of the pie,” not relinquishing what she already took. The Court disagreed:

In Liming, the appellant accepted an alimony payment that could not be affected by property-division issues on appeal. Hence her entitlement was “absolute.”
Here, Tara challenges the very decree that created the right to the payment and points. If the decree were vacated, her entitlement would evaporate or at least be subject to revision.
Christopher never conceded that Tara would remain entitled to the $100,000 or points if the decree were undone; thus the “concession” exception fails.

3. Impact and Future Implications

a. Practical Guidance for Family-Law Litigants and Counsel

Parties must choose between immediate financial benefit and appellate rights. Accepting money, property, or even intangible assets (reward points) risks forfeiting the ability to challenge the judgment.
Counsel should advise clients to “escrow” or refuse benefits pending appeal, or seek a stay/order preserving rights.
Mediated divorce settlements embedded in decrees become functionally bullet-proof once a spouse starts performance.

b. Doctrinal Significance

Reaffirms the vitality of the 19th-century doctrine in the 21st-century divorce context.
Clarifies that Liming’s exceptions are limited to situations where the appeal cannot possibly change the accepted benefit – narrowing any suggestion that mere desire for “more” is enough.
Signals that Nebraska will follow the mainstream view rather than more lenient theories from states that sometimes disregard the rule in family-law cases.

c. Potential Ripple Effects

Increases strategic litigation around timing of payments and transfers post-decree.
Likely cited in future appellate motions to dismiss when an adversary has “cashed the check.”
May influence mediation protocols – mediators and lawyers will emphasize waiting periods or escrow arrangements.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Acceptance-of-Benefits Rule: A party cannot “have his cake and eat it too” – i.e., accept what the judgment gives and at the same time attack that judgment on appeal.
Liming Exceptions:
1. Benefit is “absolute” – entitlement unaffected by reversal (e.g., undisputed debt already owed).
2. Benefit is conceded by the other side, and appeal seeks only something additional (e.g., spouse agrees to alimony, appellant asks only for more property).
Statute of Frauds in Settlements: Some agreements (e.g., those dealing with real property) must be in writing and signed. Tara argued the mediated deal was unenforceable without her signature, but the Court never reached that question due to procedural dismissal.
Equalization Payment: Lump-sum or installment payment designed to make net marital assets equal after accounting for who takes what property.
Antihypothecation Order: A prophylactic order preventing a spouse from encumbering assets (e.g., mortgaging or pledging) during divorce litigation.

Conclusion

Gentele v. Gentele serves as a powerful reminder that procedural doctrines can be dispositive. By fortifying the acceptance-of-benefits rule and setting strict limits on its exceptions, the Nebraska Supreme Court has sent a clear message: litigants must pause before pocketing decree-based payments if they intend to challenge the decree’s validity. The decision harmonizes 144 years of Nebraska precedent, sharpens the contours of Liming, and will undoubtedly be invoked in future family-law and civil appeals whenever a party has enjoyed the fruits of a judgment yet seeks to undo it.