Bergmeier v. Bergmeier
296 Neb. 440
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Jay and Nanci Bergmeier were married in 1981; they adopted two children and later separated (January 2013). Jay worked as a State Farm "captive" agent under Form AA4; Nanci had been a homemaker and later worked part-time.
- The AA4 contract entitles an agent, upon certain conditions and termination, to "termination payments" (60 months based on prior 12 months service compensation) and potentially "extended termination payments" (lifetime payments beginning after month 60 if age/service requirements met).
- Jay filed for dissolution in 2012; trial occurred in 2015. The district court treated the termination and extended termination payments as marital property, valued Jay’s termination payments as if he had terminated in January 2014, and awarded Nanci 50% of those payments (with certain offsets), to be paid when Jay actually receives them.
- The decree also divided other assets (including two businesses and real property interests), assigned liabilities to Jay, found a net marital deficiency of $52,960 and ordered each party to bear 50% of that deficiency, and awarded Nanci $2,000/month alimony until age 65 (or until she begins receiving her share of termination payments).
- Jay appealed the characterization and division of the termination payments; Nanci cross-appealed as to timing/form of payment, allocation of the marital deficit, and the alimony termination trigger.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jay) | Defendant's Argument (Nanci) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination and extended termination payments are marital property | Payments are contingent and dependent on post-dissolution events; thus nonmarital | Payments arise from a contract acquired during marriage and have present contractual value; marital | Court: Classified both as marital property (rejects Jay) but modifies valuation approach |
| Proper valuation date and method for termination payments | Court erred valuing at Jan 2014 (stale); asset not then terminated so valuation improper | Trial court valuation accepted; Nanci favored award as ordered | Court: Reversed valuation as of Jan 2014; remanded to determine marital portion using coverture/pension-style formula and present appropriate calculation |
| Percentage share of termination/extended payments to award to ex-spouse | 50% of all payments is improper because payments may include post-marriage accruals | 50% (as awarded) or immediate/lump-sum payment preferred | Court: 50% of entire payments was error. Directed use of coverture formula (marital portion = months during marriage / total months producing payment) and award Nanci 50% of that marital portion when payments commence |
| Division of other marital estate and equalization; alimony timing | (Jay) Decree division and alimony not an abuse | (Nanci) Trial court should (a) require lump-sum or immediate payments with interest for termination award; (b) not allocate 50% of deficit to her; (c) continue alimony until termination payments commence | Court: Remanded for clarification and itemized valuation of marital assets/liabilities and basis for equalization; rejected Nanci’s alimony timing claim and affirmed alimony award as reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Skaden, 19 Cal. 3d 679 (Cal. 1977) (termination payments under agent contract treated as marital property in prior authority)
- Ray v. Ray, 916 S.W.2d 469 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995) (discussion of present-value approaches to valuing termination payments)
- In re Marriage of Wade, 923 S.W.2d 735 (Tex. Ct. App. 1996) (termination payments classified as marital property)
- In re Marriage of Garceau, 232 Wis. 2d 1 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999) (same)
- Lawyer v. Lawyer, 288 Ark. 128 (Ark. 1986) (contrasting authority holding such payments nonmarital)
- Koziol v. Koziol, 10 Neb. App. 675 (Neb. Ct. App. 2001) (use of coverture formula for pension/marital portion calculation)
- Klimek v. Klimek, 18 Neb. App. 82 (Neb. Ct. App. 2009) (application of coverture formula and pension division principles)
- Webster v. Webster, 271 Neb. 788 (Neb. 2006) (marital portion principles for retirement-type benefits)
- Devney v. Devney, 295 Neb. 15 (Neb. 2016) (standard of review in dissolution appeals)
- Sellers v. Sellers, 294 Neb. 346 (Neb. 2016) (three-step property-division framework under § 42-365)
- Brozek v. Brozek, 292 Neb. 681 (Neb. 2016) (general rule that property acquired during marriage is marital)