Connolly v. Connolly, 299 Neb. 103

Valerie and Monte Connolly married in 1974; by trial Valerie (61) was disabled and received ~$1,500/month long‑term disability; Monte (64) received ~$3,600/month long‑term disability and had placed $78,062.74 of a lump‑sum retirement payment into an annuity.
The parties obtained a decree of legal separation in December 2012 based on a stipulation: they agreed to sell the marital home and split proceeds equally, Monte would continue Valerie’s health coverage through 2012 and pay her Medicare supplemental premiums thereafter, and neither party would pay or receive alimony; each would bear one‑half of attorney fees for the separation.
In September 2015 Monte moved to convert the legal separation into a dissolution. Valerie sought sale of the home, continued health insurance or spousal support, and attorney fees; she also filed a separate application for fees.
The district court entered a decree of dissolution in November 2016: it ordered the house listed and ultimately sold, awarded Valerie alimony of $363/month (the estimated Medicare supplement and prescription premiums) for life or until remarriage, and ordered Monte to pay one‑half of Valerie’s attorney fees ($1,347.57).
Valerie appealed, arguing the court erred by (1) requiring a showing of changed circumstances to award alimony and (2) awarding an insufficient amount of attorney fees.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Valerie)	Defendant's Argument (Monte / Court below)	Held
Whether a party must show a change of circumstances to obtain alimony in a dissolution following a prior decree of legal separation	Valerie: No change of circumstances required; alternatively, she has shown changed circumstances (increased costs, Monte’s increased income)	Trial court treated the dissolution as a modification of the separation order and required a showing of changed circumstances before awarding alimony	Court: Error to require change; award of alimony in dissolution need only be determined under §42‑365 criteria (no modification/good‑cause requirement)
Whether the amount of alimony and the award of one‑half of attorney fees were improper or an abuse of discretion	Valerie: $363/month is inadequate given new housing costs, medical and half mortgage/rent obligations; attorney fees award insufficient	Trial court: $363 reflects Medicare supplement costs previously provided by Monte and parties’ financial positions; one‑half of fees equitable	Court: Affirmed—$363/month not an abuse of discretion given record and sale of house; one‑half of attorney fees affirmed under the totality of circumstances

Pendleton v. Pendleton, 242 Neb. 675, 496 N.W.2d 499 (Neb. 1993) (distinguishes modification limits on alimony in dissolution from legal separation; permits alimony award on dissolution following separation)
Meints v. Meints, 258 Neb. 1017, 608 N.W.2d 564 (Neb. 2000) (defines abuse of discretion standard in marital cases)
Stephens v. Stephens, 297 Neb. 188, 899 N.W.2d 582 (Neb. 2017) (standard for de novo review on record in divorce actions)
Emery v. Mangiameli, 218 Neb. 740, 359 N.W.2d 83 (Neb. 1984) (factors for alimony and division of property; emphasis on fairness)
Marcovitz v. Rogers, 267 Neb. 456, 675 N.W.2d 132 (Neb. 2004) (criteria for awarding attorney fees in dissolution actions)
Bowers v. Lens, 264 Neb. 465, 648 N.W.2d 294 (Neb. 2002) (considerations for equitable fee awards)
State v. Thompson, 294 Neb. 197, 881 N.W.2d 609 (Neb. 2016) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)