Bergmeier v. Bergmeier
296 Neb. 440
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Jay and Nanci Bergmeier were married in 1981; they later divorced. Jay worked as a captive State Farm agent under Form AA4; Nanci stayed home for years and later worked part time.
- Form AA4 gave agents potential termination payments (60 monthly installments after termination) and extended termination payments (lifetime payments starting in month 61 if age/service conditions are met). The contract reserved ownership of policies/expirations to State Farm and contained post-termination conditions.
- Trial court found Jay’s termination and extended termination payments to be 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 adjustment), and ordered monthly remittances when Jay begins receiving payments.
- The decree allocated most other assets to Jay, assigned liabilities to Jay, ordered an equalization of the marital estate (noting a $52,960 deficiency split 50/50), awarded Nanci $2,000/month alimony until age 65 (or until she starts receiving termination payments, remarries, or dies), and $12,500 in attorney fees.
- Both parties appealed: Jay argued the termination payments should be nonmarital; Nanci cross-appealed on timing/form of payment of her share, the equalization allocation, and the alimony termination date.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jay) | Defendant's Argument (Nanci) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are State Farm termination and extended termination payments marital property? | Payments are nonmarital because future receipt/value is uncertain and depend on post-dissolution events. | Payments are marital because the contract was acquired during marriage and confers an accrued contractual right with substantial value. | Court: Classified both as marital property. |
| Proper method to value and divide termination payments (amount and spouse share)? | Court erred by assigning a fixed 2014 value and awarding 50% of all payments regardless of time earned before/after marriage. | Nanci sought the 50% division as awarded and argued for immediate or lump-sum payment with interest. | Court: Reversed fixed valuation and 50% of total; directed use of a coverture formula to determine marital portion, then award Nanci 50% of that marital portion; payments to be remitted monthly when received. |
| Division and equalization of the remainder of the marital estate (asset/liability valuations and deficiency allocation)? | (Implicit) Trial court’s division acceptable. | Trial court’s equalization unclear and unequal; challenged 50/50 allocation of the $52,960 deficiency and classification of certain debts. | Court: Upheld classification of the disputed debts as marital; reversed and remanded the remainder of property division because decree failed to state asset/liability valuations and reasoning for equalization; ordered the court to clarify valuations (excluding any fixed termination-payment value). |
| Alimony term and relation to termination payments (should alimony continue until payments commence)? | (Jay) Alimony as ordered is appropriate; will end when Nanci starts receiving her share or at 65. | Alimony should continue until Nanci actually begins receiving termination payments (could be after age 65) to avoid a gap. | Court: Affirmed alimony award as not an abuse of discretion (award $2,000/mo until 65 or until she begins receiving termination payments, etc.). |
Key Cases Cited
- Devney v. Devney, 295 Neb. 15 (standard of appellate review in dissolution matters)
- Sellers v. Sellers, 294 Neb. 346 (three-step property division under § 42-365)
- Klimek v. Klimek, 18 Neb. App. 82 (use of coverture formula for pension/marital portion)
- Koziol v. Koziol, 10 Neb. App. 675 (coverture formula explanation)
- Webster v. Webster, 271 Neb. 788 (pension portion earned during marriage is marital)
- Brozek v. Brozek, 292 Neb. 681 (general rule that property acquired during marriage is marital)
- Anderson v. Anderson, 290 Neb. 530 (standard and purpose of alimony)