Bergmeier v. Bergmeier
296 Neb. 440
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Jay and Nanci Bergmeier married in 1981; they adopted two children and later separated in 2013. Jay worked as a State Farm "captive" insurance agent; Nanci did not work full time for much of the marriage.
- 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 if age/service conditions met). Payments depend on compensation in the 12 months before termination and on contingencies including return of company property and noncompetition compliance.
- The district court treated both termination and extended termination payments as marital property, valued the termination payments at $802,040 (as if terminated in Jan 2014), awarded Nanci 50% of those payments (with a $26,480 reduction) and required Jay to remit monthly shares when he received payments; it also divided other assets, found a net marital deficiency of $52,960 (each party responsible for half), awarded Nanci $2,000/month alimony until age 65 or until other triggering events, and $12,500 in attorney fees.
- Jay appealed the characterization/value/allocation of the termination payments; Nanci cross-appealed seeking (among other things) immediate lump-sum payment or immediate installments with interest, a different allocation of the marital deficiency, and alimony to continue until her termination-payment receipts begin.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court upheld classification of the termination and extended termination payments as marital property but reversed the district court’s valuation and the flat 50% award, directing the trial court to determine the marital portion using a coverture formula (like pension division) and to award Nanci 50% of that marital portion when payments commence; it remanded for clarification of asset/liability valuations and the equalization calculation, but affirmed the alimony award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether State Farm termination & extended termination payments are marital property | Jay: payments are uncertain/future and should be nonmarital | Nanci: contract acquired during marriage has substantial value and is marital | Payments are marital property; district court correctly classified them |
| Proper valuation timing and method for termination payments | Jay: court erred in including/valuing payments as of Jan 2014 | Nanci: court’s valuation and timing acceptable; payments should be payable when received | Court abused discretion valuing at Jan 2014; remanded to value marital portion using coverture-type formula and not assign a fixed present dollar value now |
| Percentage allocation of termination payments | Jay: 100% to him or at least less than 50% because payments may be postmarital | Nanci: 50% of payments awarded by trial court was appropriate | Court reversed flat 50% award; directed use of formula allocating marital portion and awarding Nanci 50% of that marital portion when payments commence |
| Division and equalization of remaining marital estate (excluding termination payments) | Nanci: trial court’s equalization and debt allocation created inequity; some debts incurred postseparation should be nonmarital | Jay: debts were marital and properly included; equalization ok | Court found decree unclear because the trial court failed to list asset/liability values; remanded to specify valuations and clarify equalization; prior inclusion of termination-value must be removed from equalization |
| Alimony duration tied to termination payments | Nanci: alimony should continue until termination payments begin to avoid a gap | Jay: current order (ending at age 65 or when termination payments begin) is reasonable | Court affirmed the district court’s alimony award as not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Devney v. Devney, 295 Neb. 15 (standard of appellate review in dissolution actions)
- Sellers v. Sellers, 294 Neb. 346 (three-step property division under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365)
- Brozek v. Brozek, 292 Neb. 681 (marital estate generally includes property accumulated during marriage)
- Klimek v. Klimek, 18 Neb. App. 82 (use of coverture formula for dividing retirement-type benefits)
- Koziol v. Koziol, 10 Neb. App. 675 (application/description of coverture formula)
- Webster v. Webster, 271 Neb. 788 (pension division principles)
- In re Marriage of Skaden, 19 Cal. 3d 679 (California case holding State Farm-type termination payments marital)
- Ray v. Ray, 916 S.W.2d 469 (Tenn. App. case addressing valuation timing for termination payments)