Bergmeier v. Bergmeier
296 Neb. 440
Neb.2017Background
- Jay and Nanci Bergmeier married in 1981; Jay became a captive State Farm insurance agent during the marriage; Nanci left teaching to raise children and later obtained a master’s degree.
- Jay’s Agent Agreement (State Farm Form AA4) provides for termination payments (60 months) and extended termination payments (lifelong if qualifying), contingent on termination and other conditions; policies and expirations are owned by State Farm.
- Divorce trial occurred in 2015; district court classified Jay’s termination and extended termination payments as marital property, assigned a $802,040 value (based on hypothetical January 2014 termination), and awarded Nanci 50% (with some reduction).
- The decree awarded other assets (businesses, bank accounts, vehicles), assigned liabilities largely to Jay, ordered $2,000/month alimony to Nanci until age 65 (or until Jay begins receiving termination payments, remarriage, death, or further order), and $12,500 attorney fees to Nanci.
- Both parties appealed: Jay challenged the marital classification/value of the termination payments; Nanci cross-appealed timing/form of payments, allocation of a marital deficiency, and alimony termination timing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jay) | Defendant's Argument (Nanci) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are State Farm termination and extended termination payments marital property? | Payments are speculative and dependent on post-dissolution events, so nonmarital. | The contract was acquired during the marriage and has present contractual value; thus marital. | Court: Classified both payments as marital property. |
| Was the district court’s valuation (using Jan 2014 hypothetical) and 50% award appropriate? | Valuation and flat 50% split are improper because value depends on future termination date and postmarital service. | 50% split is appropriate as awarded. | Court: Reversed valuation and 50% award; ordered use of coverture formula to determine marital portion, then award Nanci 50% of that marital portion; remit monthly when payments received. |
| Should Nanci receive her share as a lump sum or immediate payments with interest? | (Jay argued timing not in his favor) | Nanci argued for lump sum or immediate payments with postjudgment interest. | Court: Denied lump-sum/immediate-payment relief; directed payment of Nanci’s computed percentage monthly when Jay actually receives payments. |
| Was the district court’s division of other marital property and equalization adequate? | (Jay defended district court division) | Nanci argued unequal/economic inequity and misallocation of certain debts and deficiency responsibility. | Court: Affirmed classification of disputed debts as marital; reversed and remanded the property division (except termination payments) because the decree failed to state valuations and basis for equalization; instructed court to set asset/liability values and clarify any equalization. |
| Was the alimony award an abuse of discretion (ending at age 65 rather than when termination payments start)? | (Jay supported existing order) | Nanci argued alimony should continue until termination payments commence to avoid a support gap. | Court: Alimony award not an abuse of discretion; no change required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Devney v. Devney, 295 Neb. 15 (standard of review: de novo on record in dissolution proceedings)
- Sellers v. Sellers, 294 Neb. 346 (three-step equitable division under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365)
- Brozek v. Brozek, 292 Neb. 681 (general rule: property acquired during marriage is marital)
- Klimek v. Klimek, 18 Neb. App. 82 (use of coverture formula for pension-type assets)
- Webster v. Webster, 271 Neb. 788 (pension valuation principles)
- Koziol v. Koziol, 10 Neb. App. 675 (marital portion excludes pre- and post-marriage accruals)
- In re Marriage of Skaden, 19 Cal. 3d 679 (treating termination payments as marital)
- Ray v. Ray, 916 S.W.2d 469 (valuation approaches for agent termination payments)
- Matter of Marriage of Wade, 923 S.W.2d 735 (termination payments as marital)
- In re Marriage of Garceau v. Garceau, 232 Wis. 2d 1 (termination payments as marital)
- Lawyer v. Lawyer, 288 Ark. 128 (termination payments held nonmarital)
- In re Marriage of Frazier, 125 Ill. App. 3d 473 (termination payments held nonmarital)
- Mallett v. Mallett, 323 S.C. 141 (termination payments held nonmarital)