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" insurance agent and the parties formed Bergy Properties, LLC.
- Jay’s agent relationship under State Farm Form AA4 provided for potential post-termination "termination payments" (60 months) and "extended termination payments" (lifetime after month 61 if qualifying conditions met).
- District court treated both termination and extended termination payments as marital assets, assigned a $802,040 value (based on hypothetical January 2014 retirement), and awarded Nanci 50% (with procedures for monthly remittances when payments commence).
- District court divided other assets/liabilities in a table, found a net marital deficiency of $52,960 and ordered each party to share that deficiency 50/50, reducing Nanci’s share via her interest in termination payments; court awarded Nanci $2,000/month alimony until age 65 (or until she begins receiving termination payments), plus attorney fees.
- On appeal, Jay challenged classification and valuation of the termination payments; Nanci cross-appealed on timing/form of payment, equalization allocation, and alimony duration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jay) | Defendant's Argument (Nanci) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are termination and extended termination payments marital property? | Payments are nonmarital because contingent and dependent on post-decree events. | Payments are marital because contractual right accrued during marriage and has substantial value. | Court: Classified both as marital property. |
| Was the district court’s valuation (fixed $802,040 as of Jan 2014) and 50% award proper? | Fixed valuation and 50% share were improper because value and marital portion depend on termination date and postmarriage service. | 50% award and valuation were acceptable. | Court: Error. Reversed valuation and 50% award; directed use of coverture formula to determine marital portion, with Nanci to receive 50% of marital portion. |
| Should Nanci receive payments immediately or lump sum / interest? | N/A (Jay opposed immediate lump-sum). | Nanci argued for lump sum or payments commencing immediately with postjudgment interest. | Court: Rejected lump-sum/immediate payment; ordered monthly remittances to Nanci when and if Jay receives payments per corrected formula. |
| Was the district court’s division of the rest of the marital estate and equalization sufficiently explained? | N/A (Jay defended decree). | Nanci argued unequal allocation of deficiency and that court’s equalization was inequitable/unclear. | Court: Remanded — decree failed to list asset/liability valuations and basis for equalization; district court must clarify valuations and any equalization, excluding improper termination-payment valuation. |
| Alimony duration: should it continue until termination payments commence? | Jay supported current order (until age 65 or commencement of payments). | Nanci argued alimony should continue until she actually begins receiving termination payments to avoid a gap. | Court: No abuse of discretion in awarding alimony until age 65 (or earlier if payments start); alimony award affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Devney v. Devney, 295 Neb. 15 (2016) (standard of appellate review in dissolution cases)
- Sellers v. Sellers, 294 Neb. 346 (2016) (division of property, custody, support reviewed de novo for abuse of discretion)
- Klimek v. Klimek, 18 Neb. App. 82 (2009) (use of coverture formula for pension/marital portion calculations)
- Koziol v. Koziol, 10 Neb. App. 675 (2001) (pension portion earned during marriage is marital property)
- Webster v. Webster, 271 Neb. 788 (2006) (alimony principles; reasonableness standard)
- In re Marriage of Skaden, 19 Cal. 3d 679 (1977) (authority treating State Farm–style termination payments as marital property)
- In re Marriage of Garceau, 232 Wis. 2d 1 (1999) (treating termination payments as marital property)