Bergmeier v. Bergmeier
296 Neb. 440
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Jay and Nanci Bergmeier were married in 1981; they adopted two children and separated in 2013. Jay worked as a captive State Farm insurance agent; Nanci primarily stayed home and later worked part time.
- Jay’s Agent Agreement (State Farm Form AA4) provided for termination payments (60 monthly installments after termination) and extended termination payments (lifelong payments if certain age/service criteria met); Form AA4 indicated policy ownership and expirations belong to State Farm and contained noncompete and return-of-property conditions.
- The district court characterized Jay’s termination and extended termination payments as marital property, valued the termination payments at $802,040 (based on a hypothetical January 2014 termination), and awarded Nanci 50% of those payments (with certain reductions and payment-on-receipt provisions). The decree also divided other assets/liabilities, awarded Nanci $2,000/month alimony until age 65 (or until she begins receiving termination payments), and $12,500 in attorney fees.
- Jay appealed the classification/value/percentage of the termination payments; Nanci cross-appealed, arguing the court should have ordered immediate or lump-sum payment of her share, assigned less of the marital estate deficiency to her, and extended alimony until termination payments begin.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed that the termination and extended termination payments are marital property but reversed the valuation and the blanket 50% award. The Court remanded for recalculation of the marital estate and directed use of a coverture formula to determine the marital portion of the termination payments; it left the alimony award intact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jay) | Defendant's Argument (Nanci) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination and extended termination payments are marital property | Payments are speculative/contingent and thus nonmarital | Payments are contractual rights acquired during marriage and have value | Classified as marital property |
| Proper valuation date and method for termination payments | Court erred valuing payments as of Jan 2014 since Jay did not terminate then | Court’s valuation acceptable | Court abused discretion in assigning a specific stale value; value must be recalculated (remand) |
| Proper division percentage of termination payments | 50% split of all payments is incorrect given postmarriage accrual | Nanci entitled to immediate 50% interest; seeks lump-sum or immediate payments | Court erred awarding 50% of all payments; use coverture formula to find marital portion, then award Nanci 50% of marital portion; payments made monthly on receipt |
| Division of remaining marital estate and equalization calculation | (Implicit) district court’s table and equalization are sufficient | Decree unclear; equalization and asset valuations insufficient/inequitable | Remanded: district court must state valuations of marital assets/liabilities and clarify equalization; exclude any improper termination payment valuation from equalization |
Key Cases Cited
- Klimek v. Klimek, 18 Neb. App. 82, 775 N.W.2d 444 (Neb. Ct. App. 2009) (coverture formula for marital portion of pension-type benefits)
- Webster v. Webster, 271 Neb. 788, 716 N.W.2d 47 (Neb. 2006) (pension division principles and marital portion analysis)
- Koziol v. Koziol, 10 Neb. App. 675, 636 N.W.2d 890 (Neb. Ct. App. 2001) (use of coverture formula and treatment of pre/post-marriage pension accrual)
- Brozek v. Brozek, 292 Neb. 681, 874 N.W.2d 17 (Neb. 2016) (general rule that property acquired during marriage is marital)
- Ray v. Ray, 916 S.W.2d 469 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995) (approach to present valuation of agent termination payments)
- In re Marriage of Skaden, 19 Cal. 3d 679, 566 P.2d 249, 136 Cal. Rptr. 615 (Cal. 1977) (termination payments treated as marital property)
- In re Marriage of Garceau v. Garceau, 232 Wis. 2d 1, 606 N.W.2d 268 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999) (termination payments classified as marital)
- Lawyer v. Lawyer, 288 Ark. 128, 702 S.W.2d 790 (Ark. 1986) (contrasting authority holding such payments nonmarital)
- Frazier, 125 Ill. App. 3d 473, 466 N.E.2d 290, 80 Ill. Dec. 838 (Ill. App. Ct. 1984) (contrasting authority on nonmarital characterization)
- Freeman v. Groskopf, 286 Neb. 713, 838 N.W.2d 300 (Neb. 2013) (appellate de novo review and deference to trial factfinder on credibility)
- Anderson v. Anderson, 290 Neb. 530, 861 N.W.2d 113 (Neb. 2015) (standards for reviewing alimony awards)