A married couple farmed with their son. They all banked with the plaintiff, but the parents had their own financial statements and executed their own promissory notes and security agreements. The parents also had their own checking account separate from the son's checking account. The parents did not co-sign or guarantee the son's indebtedness to the plaintiff and the son didn't co-sign or guaranty the parents' debt, even though it was the plaintiff's practice to have all parties engaged in an informal partnership to do so. The parents and the son owned and operated separate farming and livestock operations, but bought and sold livestock, grain and crops together as well as leased grazing pasture together. The parents had their own operating line of credit with the bank as did the son. The son filed bankruptcy, and when the parents and son sold cattle the sale proceeds were deposited into the parents' account and then apportioned between them and their son in accordance with the number of livestock sold that were attributable to the son via different colored ear tags. This was in accordance with past practice when cattle were sold. The parents then tried to pay off their debt to the plaintiff, but the plaintiff converted the funds into a cashier's check to be deposited into the son's account and applied to the son's debt with the plaintiff. Ultimately, the $80,000 in dispute was deposited with the court until proper application of the funds was determined. The trial court ruled that the plaintiff had filed to establish that the parents had failed to show that the parents had breached their duty on their promissory notes, and that the parents were not jointly or severally liable for the son's debts because they were not in a partnership or joint venture with the son. Thus, the $80,000 was to be applied to the parents' indebtedness. On appeal, the court affirmed. On the partnership issue, the court noted that the parents and son intended to be treated as separate owners of similar property, obtained separate financing, maintained separate checking accounts, promissory notes and security agreements, and owned separate equipment and livestock, and filed separate tax returns. The court also held that there was no express or implied agreement establishing a joint venture. The court noted that the parents and the son held themselves out as engaged in separate businesses. Merely sharing equipment and labor was insufficient, by itself, to establish a partnership or joint venture. Even though the parties jointly owned cattle, the cattle were separately branded. Heritage Bank v. Kasson, 22 Neb. App. 401 (Neb. Ct. App. 2014).