Bussell v. Bussell
21 Neb. Ct. App. 280
Neb. Ct. App.2013Background
- Brent and Sheri Bussell married in 1995, separated in 2010, and two minor children remained; Brent filed for dissolution in 2010 and trial occurred Jan 2012.
- Brent held an ownership interest in a family farming partnership (20% premarital, later 25%); partnership owned significant farm equipment and stored grain; partnership income from grain sales was primary household income.
- Disputed property issues included valuation and treatment of premarital partnership equipment, credit for proceeds from sale of pre‑marital acreage ($120,000), and whether partnership/stored grain constituted marital property.
- Child support dispute centered on calculating Brent’s income (farm Schedule F, depreciation adjustments, and multi‑year averaging). Court used a 5‑year average and straight‑line depreciation adjustments to compute monthly income of $11,153.93.
- Trial court awarded Sheri custody of one child, alimony ($1,500/month for 96 months), property equalization (originally $650,000), and $10,000 in attorney fees; appellate court modified equipment valuation and reduced equalization to $550,000 and ordered Brent to provide/pay children’s health insurance if reasonably available.
Issues
| Issue | Sheri's Argument | Brent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Valuation / premarital equipment credit | Premarital credit should apply only to equipment still owned from premarital period | Court erred in arithmetic for Brent’s 25% current equipment interest (chart figure wrong) | Court affirmed setoff for premarital equipment (relying on Shafer), corrected arithmetic: Brent’s 25% = $495,550 (modifies decree) |
| Treatment of proceeds from premarital acreage sale ($120,000) | Proceeds converted to marital asset when deeded jointly and used for marital home | Proceeds were premarital/gift and credit proper | Court upheld credit to Brent for $120,000; no evidence of significant traceable value increase from spouse’s contributions |
| Inclusion of partnership/stored grain in marital estate | Stored grain and crop proceeds are marital and should be divided | Stored grain not valued/included at trial; inclusion would double‑count income for child support | Court exercised discretion to exclude stored 2011 grain as marital asset under facts; no abuse of discretion |
| Child support: income computation (depreciation & averaging) | Depreciation not properly deducted; averaging improper because income was increasing | Depreciation should be adjusted to straight‑line and income averaged over years for volatile farm income | Court approved straight‑line depreciation adjustments and 5‑year averaging for farm income; affirmed Brent’s monthly income $11,153.93 |
| Health insurance for children & spousal coverage | Court should order Brent to pay children’s premiums and 6 months of Sheri’s coverage; reimburse premiums Sheri paid | Court declined to order or adjust for premiums in decree | Appellate court: trial court erred by not addressing children’s health insurance; modified decree to require Brent to provide/pay children’s coverage if reasonably available to him; declined to order reimbursement to Sheri or 6 months spousal coverage |
| Alimony duration & attorney fees | Sheri sought 10 years alimony and greater attorney fees (requested $50,000 at trial) | Court awarded 8 years alimony and $10,000 fees; Brent contended awards appropriate given equities | Court found no abuse of discretion in 8‑year alimony or $10,000 attorney fee award; affirmed as modified |
Key Cases Cited
- Mamot v. Mamot, 283 Neb. 659 (appellate standard and deference in dissolution matters)
- Fisher v. PayFlex Systems USA, 285 Neb. 808 (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Plog v. Plog, 20 Neb. App. 383 (three‑step property division under § 42‑365)
- Gress v. Gress, 271 Neb. 122 (treatment of premarital property and income averaging guidance)
- Shafer v. Shafer, 16 Neb. App. 170 (setoff of premarital assets where business operation effectively traces premarital asset into present pool)
- Kalkowski v. Kalkowski, 258 Neb. 1035 (no bright‑line rule for including growing/stored crops as marital property)
- Peter v. Peter, 262 Neb. 1017 (limits on income averaging when income shows clear, consistent trend)
- Willcock v. Willcock, 12 Neb. App. 422 (affirming income averaging for farm income subject to year‑to‑year fluctuation)
- Reed v. Reed, 277 Neb. 391 (definition and treatment of dissipation of marital assets)