Becher v. Becher
299 Neb. 206
| Neb. | 2018Background
- Mark and Sonia Becher divorced after a 21-year marriage; they consented to a trial before a court-appointed referee under Neb. Rev. Stat. ch. 25.
- The referee issued findings and recommendations after a 14-day trial; Sonia excepted to the report, Mark initially did but later withdrew most exceptions; the district court adopted some referee findings and modified others in the final decree.
- Major contested issues: classification and valuation of significant assets (including three commercial properties, businesses, and personal property), custody/parenting plan, child support/private school tuition, alimony, and attorney fees.
- Mark appealed; the Nebraska Court of Appeals reversed portions of the district court for failing to explicitly state that referee findings were "clearly against the weight of the evidence." The Supreme Court granted further review.
- While appeals were pending, both parties sought contempt relief for alleged violations of the decree; the district court entered contempt orders against both and awarded restitution to Mark for certain missing personal property.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mark or Sonia) | Defendant's Argument (opposing) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of review for Chapter 25 referee reports | (Mark) District court erred by not deferring to referee and by not expressly finding referee findings were "clearly against the weight of the evidence" before overturning them | (Sonia) District court may review referee recommendations and substitute its own conclusions when appropriate; no statutory requirement for explicit findings | The Supreme Court: factual findings of a Chapter 25 referee get deference and can be set aside only if clearly against the weight of the evidence; §25-1131 does not require the district court to make explicit on-the-record statements that findings are against the weight of the evidence; district court owes no deference to referee conclusions/recommendations. |
| Classification of monetary gifts used in marriage (West O building and mortgage payoff) | (Mark) Argued district court improperly overturned referee on status of gifts and credits | (Sonia) Argued gifts remained nonmarital where traceable or not dissipated; mortgage payoff remained gift | Held: West O building and the mortgage payoff funds remained nonmarital gifts — district court did not abuse discretion in awarding West O to Sonia and crediting full mortgage payoff to Sonia. |
| Valuation of businesses and personal property (Sark Tile; Lamp & Lighting; shipping containers; household items) | (Mark) District court erred in substituting its valuations for the referee’s and in valuing some items higher | (Sonia) District court’s valuations were within discretion; some referee computations contained errors (e.g., double-counting debt) | Held: Court abused discretion in reweighing evidence for Sark Tile and in substituting values for personal property and separately valuing shipping containers already included in Sark Tile valuation — those items must revert to referee valuations; Lamp & Lighting valuation by district court affirmed because referee duplicated debt credit. |
| Acceptance of benefits / equitable estoppel after conveyance of property (quitclaim deeds; sale of Mini Storage) | (Mark) Conveyances were not acceptance of benefits; he did not file supersedeas bond; conveyances were effectively compelled or involuntary | (Sonia) Mark’s actions (refinances, quitclaims, failure to supersede) showed intent to be bound and reliance; sale to third party requires waiver | Held: The acceptance-of-benefits doctrine did not bar Mark’s appellate review generally; however, equitable estoppel applied to bar recovery of Mini Storage because Sonia relied and sold it; awards of two other commercial properties to Sonia affirmed. |
| Contempt proceedings and restitution | (Mark) District court improperly modified decree during appeal, restitution too low, he was denied opportunity to rebut evidence | (Sonia) Court acted within contempt power; separate tort remedies available for trespass/conversion | Held: District court did not modify the decree but properly exercised contempt powers to order restitution; restitution amount based on previously determined values was appropriate; Sonia’s claims that additional contempt findings were warranted were rejected (tort remedies available). |
Key Cases Cited
- Mid America Agri Products v. Rowlands, [citation="286 Neb. 305"] (review of special master findings treated as special verdict)
- Larkin v. Ethicon, Inc., [citation="251 Neb. 169"] (treatment of recommended findings by special master)
- Osantowski v. Osantowski, [citation="298 Neb. 339"] (de novo review standard in dissolution appeals)
- Liming v. Liming, [citation="272 Neb. 534"] (acceptance-of-benefits doctrine and appellate waiver)
- Heald v. Heald, [citation="259 Neb. 604"] (marital estate excludes gifts/inheritances)
- Parde v. Parde, [citation="258 Neb. 101"] (equitable distribution principles in divorce)
- Kassebaum v. Kassebaum, [citation="178 Neb. 812"] (exception to acceptance-of-benefits when appeal outcome cannot affect the accepted benefit)
- Sickler v. Sickler, [citation="293 Neb. 521"] (court's contempt/restoration authority)