Bergmeier v. Bergmeier
296 Neb. 440
Neb.2017Background
- Jay and Nanci Bergmeier married in 1981; Jay became a State Farm "captive agent" during the marriage and the couple formed two businesses, including Bergy Properties.
- State Farm’s Form AA4 agreement (unsigned copy in record) provides for termination payments (60 monthly installments after termination) and extended termination payments (lifelong payments starting month 61 if eligibility criteria met); payments depend on service compensation in the 12 months preceding termination and other contingencies.
- Divorce trial occurred in 2015; district court treated Jay’s termination and extended termination payments as marital property, valued the termination payments as if Jay had retired in January 2014, and awarded Nanci 50% of those payments (with monthly remittances when Jay actually receives them).
- District court divided other assets and liabilities, awarded Nanci $2,000/month alimony (until age 65, remarriage, death, or until Jay begins receiving termination payments), and $12,500 in attorney fees; it also found a $52,960 marital estate deficiency split 50/50 without listing valuations.
- Both parties appealed: Jay challenged classification of termination payments as marital; Nanci cross-appealed several aspects (timing/lump-sum of payments, share of deficiency, and alimony duration).
Issues
| Issue | Jay’s Argument | Nanci’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination and extended termination payments under Form AA4 are marital property | Payments are speculative/nonmarital because not certain to be received and value depends on post-dissolution events | They are marital because the contract arose during the marriage and has substantial accrued contractual value | Classified as marital property (court agrees with jurisdictions treating them as marital) |
| Proper valuation and division of termination/extended termination payments | Court erred valuing payments as of Jan 2014 and awarding 50% of all payments | Court should have ordered lump-sum or immediate payments with interest | Court held valuation as of Jan 2014 was an abuse of discretion; reversed that portion and rejected flat 50% award; remanded to apply coverture formula and award Nanci 50% of the marital portion |
| Division/valuation of other marital assets and liabilities (equalization) | (implicitly) Court’s table and equalization unclear; termination payments distorted estate valuation | District court failed to specify values; equalization unclear and possibly inequitable to Nanci | Remanded: district court must set forth values of marital assets/liabilities, clarify equalization; exclude the previously assigned termination payment value from estate valuation |
| Alimony duration and timing relative to termination payments | (Jay) alimony limited as ordered; court did not abuse discretion | (Nanci) alimony should continue until termination payments begin (to avoid gap if payments start after she turns 65) | Court did not abuse its discretion; $2,000/month until age 65 (or other listed events) stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Devney v. Devney, 295 Neb. 15 (standard of appellate review in dissolution actions) (cited for de novo review and abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Sellers v. Sellers, 294 Neb. 346 (application of § 42-365 and standards for division of property, custody, alimony, fees)
- Klimek v. Klimek, 18 Neb. App. 82 (use of coverture formula for dividing pension-like benefits)
- Ray v. Ray, 916 S.W.2d 469 (approach to present valuation of similar agent termination payments)
- In re Marriage of Garceau, 232 Wis. 2d 1 (deciding that State Farm termination payments may be marital property)