Bergmeier v. Bergmeier
296 Neb. 440
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Jay and Nanci Bergmeier married in 1981, adopted two children, and later divorced; Jay worked as a State Farm "captive agent," Nanci had been a homemaker and later worked part time.
- Jay’s relationship with State Farm was governed by Form AA4, which provides for termination payments (60 monthly installments after termination) and extended termination payments (lifelong payments beginning after month 60 if age/service thresholds met); State Farm retains ownership of policies/expiration lists and pays service-based compensation.
- The district court treated Jay’s termination and extended termination payments as marital property, assigned a value to them (based on a hypothetical January 2014 termination), and awarded Nanci 50% of those payments (with procedural directions for monthly remittance when payments begin).
- The decree divided other assets (e.g., business interests, accounts, real property) and liabilities, ordered Jay to pay Nanci $2,000/month alimony until age 65 (or until she begins receiving termination payments, remarries, or dies), and awarded Nanci $12,500 attorney fees; the court also found a $52,960 net marital deficiency split equally.
- Both parties appealed issues: Jay challenged classification of the termination payments as marital property and their valuation/division; Nanci cross-appealed several procedural/valuation aspects including lump-sum treatment, equalization allocation, and alimony duration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jay) | Defendant's Argument (Nanci) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are State Farm termination and extended termination payments marital property? | Payments are contingent and thus nonmarital (no indefeasible present right). | Contractual rights accrued during marriage and have substantial value, so they are marital. | Court: Classified both as marital property. |
| Was the district court’s valuation (assigning value as of Jan 2014) and 50% award proper? | Court erred to fix a stale January 2014 value and to award 50% of all future payments. | Trial court’s approach was acceptable to split asset now as 50/50. | Court: Reversed valuation and 50% award; remanded to apply coverture formula to determine marital portion and award Nanci 50% of the marital portion when payments commence. |
| Did the decree adequately value/divide the remainder of marital estate and equalization? | (Implicit) Trial court’s table and equalization adequate. | Trial court failed to specify asset/liability values and gave unclear equalization; allocation of $52,960 deficiency and 50% responsibility to Nanci unfair. | Court: Reversed and remanded for the district court to specify valuations of marital assets/liabilities and clarify any equalization; exclude improperly valued termination payments from equalization. |
| Was the alimony award ( $2,000/month until age 65 or until Nanci begins receiving termination payments) an abuse of discretion? | Argued by Nanci that alimony should continue until termination payments commence to avoid a gap. | Trial court: award reasonable given Nanci’s age, earning capacity, and other factors; alimony may cease upon her receipt of termination payments. | Court: Affirmed alimony award as not an abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Devney v. Devney, 295 Neb. 15 (standard of review; de novo with abuse-of-discretion for divorce matters)
- Sellers v. Sellers, 294 Neb. 346 (three-step property division under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365)
- Klimek v. Klimek, 18 Neb. App. 82 (use of coverture formula for pension-like assets)
- Koziol v. Koziol, 10 Neb. App. 675 (coverture formula explanation and marital portion principles)
- In re Marriage of Garceau, 232 Wis. 2d 1 (treating State Farm-type termination payments as marital property)
- In re Marriage of Skaden, 19 Cal. 3d 679 (one authority treating termination payments as marital property)