Bergmeier v. Bergmeier
296 Neb. 440
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Jay and Nanci Bergmeier married in 1981; they adopted two children who were adults at dissolution. Jay was a State Farm "captive agent" under Form AA4; Nanci had left teaching to raise the children and later worked part‑time.
- Form AA4 (agent agreement) provides for termination payments (60 monthly installments based on prior 12 months’ service compensation) and extended termination payments (lifetime payments contingent on age and years of service), but payments depend on future events (termination, sales in the 12 months before termination, compliance with return/noncompete provisions).
- Jay continued working for State Farm through trial; he had not terminated the agreement as of the decree. Parties jointly owned Bergy Properties LLC and other marital assets and debts.
- The district court treated Jay’s termination and extended termination payments as marital property, valued termination payments as if Jay had retired January 2014 ($802,040) and awarded Nanci 50% (subject to a small reduction), ordering Jay to remit payments to Nanci when he received them; it also awarded Nanci $2,000/month alimony until age 65 and $12,500 in attorney fees.
- On appeal, Jay challenged the classification/value/allocation of the termination payments; Nanci cross‑appealed as to timing of payment, division of a marital deficiency, and alimony termination timing.
Issues
| Issue | Jay's Argument | Nanci's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are termination and extended termination payments marital property? | Payments are nonmarital because future receipt/value is uncertain and depend on postdivorce events. | Payments are marital because the contractual right accrued during marriage and has substantial value. | Classified as marital property. |
| Was the district court’s valuation and 50% award correct? | The court erred by assigning a stale, specific value (as of Jan 2014) and awarding 50% of all payments. | Nanci argued for immediate lump sum or payments with interest; supported 50% share. | Court erred: reversed valuation and 50% award. Directed use of coverture formula to determine marital portion; Nanci gets 50% of marital portion when payments commence. |
| Was the remainder of the marital property division/equalization adequately supported? | (Implicit) Court’s table sufficed. | District court failed to specify asset/liability valuations and unclear equalization—creates inequity. | Reversed in part and remanded: court must set out valuations and clarify equalization (excluding termination payments). |
| Was alimony award abusive (ending at age 65 rather than at start of termination payments)? | (Implicit) Award reasonable. | Alimony should continue until termination payments commence to avoid a gap. | Affirmed: alimony award not an abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Devney v. Devney, 295 Neb. 15 (apellate standard: de novo review for family law matters)
- Sellers v. Sellers, 294 Neb. 346 (three‑step equitable division under § 42‑365)
- Brozek v. Brozek, 292 Neb. 681 (general rule: property acquired during marriage is marital)
- Klimek v. Klimek, 18 Neb. App. 82 (coverture formula for pension/marital portion)
- Koziol v. Koziol, 10 Neb. App. 675 (use of coverture formula and pension division principles)
- Ray v. Ray, 916 S.W.2d 469 (valuation approach for termination payments)
- In re Marriage of Skaden, 19 Cal. 3d 679 (jurisdictional authority recognizing termination payments as marital)