What Is Pebley v. Pebley and Why Does It Matter for Nebraska Divorce Cases?

Pebley v. Pebley (33 Neb. App. 902), filed on January 6, 2026, is a decision from the Nebraska Court of Appeals that offers one of the clearest modern explanations of how Nebraska courts handle joint legal custody, premarital property claims, dissipation allegations, valuation dates, and large equalization payments in high-asset divorces. 

If you are going through a Nebraska divorce involving children, rental real estate, inherited money, or a large marital estate, Pebley v. Pebley is a case worth understanding. The Court of Appeals affirmed that courts may order joint legal custody without giving either parent final decision-making authority, even when parents struggle to cooperate during litigation. It reinforced that the “best interests of the child” standard controls, not which parent argues more forcefully for tie-breaking power.

On the financial side, Pebley delivers a practical warning about premarital assets. The spouse claiming a nonmarital interest carries the burden of proof. Testimony alone—even detailed testimony—may fail without reliable documentation. In this case, a real estate loan application prepared before marriage was deemed unreliable and insufficient to establish premarital equity. By contrast, a Roth IRA succeeded as nonmarital because it was supported by clear account statements showing its value at the time of marriage and its traceable path forward.

Pebley also clarifies dissipation claims. Alleging that a spouse misused marital funds requires more than suspicion or disagreement over budgeting. The claiming spouse must prove selfish, non-marital use of funds during the breakdown of the marriage, and credibility matters.

Finally, Pebley addresses equalization payments head-on. While courts may award one spouse largely illiquid assets such as rental real estate, appellate courts will intervene when payment schedules are unrealistic. Ordering a six-figure payment within 60 days was found to be an abuse of discretion, and the Court of Appeals required installment payments instead.

How Did Pebley Handle Joint Legal Custody and Final Decision-Making Authority?

The Pebley court confirmed that Nebraska judges may award joint legal and physical custody without giving either parent final decision-making authority, so long as the arrangement serves the children’s best interests. 

Under Nebraska’s Parenting Act, legal custody focuses on decision-making authority over major issues such as education and medical care. Courts are permitted to assign one parent tie-breaking authority to avoid impasses, but Pebley makes clear that doing so is optional, not required. The trial court believed the parents could learn to cooperate once litigation ended, and the Court of Appeals deferred to that judgment.

The practical takeaway is important: conflict during divorce does not automatically justify giving one parent final say. Nebraska courts prioritize long-term stability for children over short-term litigation dynamics.

What Does Pebley Say About Premarital Property and Proof?

Pebley strongly reinforces that the spouse claiming an asset is nonmarital bears the burden of proof, and that burden is substantive. 

Nebraska law allows assets to contain both marital and nonmarital components. Equity that existed before marriage can be set aside, but only if the claiming spouse proves both the value at marriage and its traceability into the present asset.

In Pebley, the husband relied primarily on an unsigned 2007 loan application to establish premarital equity in multiple rental properties. The trial court found the document unreliable and unsupported by deeds, closing statements, or mortgage records. The Court of Appeals agreed.

By contrast, the husband successfully established the premarital portion of a Roth IRA because he produced account statements showing the balance before marriage and the continuity of those funds. That documentation made the difference.

The lesson is simple but critical: testimony may be allowed, but documentation wins.

How Did the Court Treat Inheritance, Gifts, and Dissipation Claims?

Pebley confirms that inheritances are generally nonmarital, but only if they can be traced. 

In this case, inherited funds were deposited into accounts that later received additional deposits and transfers. Because the record did not clearly establish that the remaining balances consisted solely of inherited money, the court treated those accounts as marital. This is a textbook example of how commingling defeats nonmarital claims.

The court also rejected a dissipation claim. Dissipation requires proof that a spouse used marital funds for selfish, non-marital purposes during the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. Mere suspicion or disagreement over budgeting is not enough. Here, the husband testified that funds were properly credited between the parties, and the trial court believed him. On appeal, that credibility determination carried significant weight.

What Did Pebley Decide About Valuation Dates and Equalization Payments?

Nebraska courts have discretion to select valuation dates so long as those dates are rationally related to the assets being divided. Pebley approved the use of different valuation dates for different asset categories, including bank accounts, retirement accounts, and real estate. 

The most impactful part of the decision involves equalization payments. The trial court ordered a payment exceeding $600,000 within 60 days, despite most assets being illiquid rental real estate. The Court of Appeals found this unrealistic and modified the decree to require payment in five annual installments, with interest.

This portion of Pebley is especially relevant for high-asset divorces and confirms that Nebraska appellate courts will step in when financial orders ignore economic reality.

Why Pebley v. Pebley Matters Going Forward

Pebley is a roadmap for modern Nebraska divorces. It shows that documentation outweighs narrative, that custody decisions hinge on best interests rather than parental conflict, and that appellate courts will correct financial orders that are not realistically achievable. 

For anyone preparing for divorce, the case underscores the importance of early financial organization and strategic planning—something we prioritize at Zachary W. Anderson Law.

Frequently Asked Questions About 

Pebley v. Pebley

What is the main legal significance of Pebley v. Pebley?

The case clarifies how Nebraska courts approach joint legal custody without tie-breaking authority and reinforces the strict proof requirements for premarital property claims.

Does Pebley require courts to give one parent final decision-making authority?

No. Courts may decline to assign final authority if joint legal custody serves the children’s best interests.

Why did the court reject the premarital real estate claims?

Because the husband relied on an unsigned, unreliable loan application rather than deeds, closing statements, or mortgage records to establish value at the time of marriage.

How large was the equalization payment in Pebley?

After modification, the equalization payment was $633,856.38, payable in five annual installments plus interest.

How can Pebley affect my Nebraska divorce?

If your case involves rental properties, commingled inheritance, or disputes over decision-making authority, Pebley sets the evidentiary and strategic baseline courts will expect.