Bergmeier v. Bergmeier
894 N.W.2d 266
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Jay and Nanci Bergmeier married in 1981; they adopted two children and later separated (separation Jan 4, 2013). Jay worked as a State Farm captive agent under Form AA4; Nanci had paused her teaching career and had limited earnings at trial.
- Form AA4 provides for termination payments (60 monthly installments after termination) and extended termination payments (beginning month 61 and possibly lifetime), subject to conditions (return of company property, noncompete, age/service requirements).
- Trial court found Jay’s termination and extended termination payments were marital property, valued the termination payments as if Jay had terminated in Jan 2014 ($802,040), and awarded Nanci 50% (reduced slightly). The court ordered monthly remittances when payments began and required a survivor election for extended payments.
- The decree divided other assets and liabilities in a table, found a net marital deficiency of $52,960 and allocated 50% of that deficiency to each party, with Nanci’s share to be reduced from her termination-payment interest. The court awarded Nanci $2,000/month alimony until age 65 (or earlier if she begins receiving termination payments, remarries, or dies) and $12,500 attorney fees.
- Both parties appealed: Jay argued termination payments were nonmarital; Nanci cross-appealed valuation/timing of payment, equalization allocation, and alimony termination timing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jay) | Defendant's Argument (Nanci) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination and extended termination payments are marital property | Payments are contingent and should be nonmarital | Payments are contractual rights acquired during marriage and thus marital | Court: Payments are marital property (classify as marital) |
| Valuation and percentage award for termination payments | Court erred valuing payments as of Jan 2014 and awarding 50% of full value | District court valuation/payment timing insufficient; Nanci sought lump sum or immediate payments | Court: Valuation as of Jan 2014 and flat 50% were erroneous; remanded to apply coverture formula to compute marital portion and award Nanci 50% of marital portion; payments when/if received monthly within 15 days |
| Division/equalization of remaining marital estate (excluding termination payments) | (Implicit) Court’s table and equalization adequate | District court failed to state asset/liability valuations and unclear equalization; alleged inequity in assigning deficiency shares | Court: Remanded — district court must specify valuations, clarify equalization, and not include incorrect termination-payment value in marital estate calculation |
| Alimony duration/timing | (Implicit) current order acceptable | Alimony should continue until termination payments commence (to avoid a gap) | Court: Alimony award ($2,000/mo until 65 or until Nanci begins receiving her termination payments, remarries, or dies) is not an abuse of discretion; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Devney v. Devney, 295 Neb. 15 (Neb. 2016) (standard: de novo review of dissolution matters for abuse of discretion)
- Sellers v. Sellers, 294 Neb. 346 (Neb. 2016) (division of property, custody, support reviewed de novo for abuse of discretion)
- Brozek v. Brozek, 292 Neb. 681 (Neb. 2016) (general rule that property acquired during marriage is marital)
- Koziol v. Koziol, 10 Neb. App. 675 (Neb. Ct. App. 2001) (use of coverture formula for pension/marital portion)
- Klimek v. Klimek, 18 Neb. App. 82 (Neb. Ct. App. 2009) (application/discussion of coverture formula)
- Webster v. Webster, 271 Neb. 788 (Neb. 2006) (pension division principles)
- In re Marriage of Skaden, 19 Cal. 3d 679 (Cal. 1977) (one authority holding State Farm termination payments marital)