Cornwell v. Cornwell, 309 Neb. 156

Daniel and Melanie Cornwell married in 1999; Daniel retired from the Maryland State Police in 2010 and receives a defined‑benefit pension in pay status, partly as a disability pension (no lump‑sum buyout).
The parties stipulated that 49% of Daniel’s pension is marital property.
Melanie’s valuation expert placed a present value on the marital share and urged the immediate offset method; Daniel’s expert disputed that valuation and urged a deferred distribution via a domestic relations order (DRO).
The Nance County District Court accepted Melanie’s expert valuation, used the immediate offset method, awarded the pension to Daniel, and ordered Daniel to make a cash equalization payment to Melanie of $403,892 (paid $100,000/year).
Daniel appealed the court’s use of the immediate offset method; Melanie cross‑appealed the denial of her request for attorney fees and costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Daniel)	Defendant's Argument (Melanie)	Held
Whether the district court erred by using the immediate offset method to value and divide the marital portion of Daniel’s pension	Immediate offset requires speculative present‑value valuation here; court should have used deferred distribution (DRO/QDRO) because present value is too uncertain and liquid assets insufficient to equalize without undue hardship	Immediate offset valuation was supported by expert evidence and appropriate because the pension was in pay status, valuation was reliable, and the marriage/divorce was contentious (risk of manipulation)	Affirmed. The Supreme Court held the immediate offset method was not an abuse of discretion given pay status of the pension, reliable valuation evidence, contentious litigation, and available assets/payment plan for equalization.
Whether the district court abused discretion by denying Melanie attorney fees and costs	Melanie sought fees because Daniel allegedly protracted and obstructed the case	Daniel argued procedural defects in the cross‑appeal formatting and contested fee entitlement	Affirmed. Court found no abuse of discretion; both parties contributed to delay and the record did not justify awarding fees.

Higgins v. Currier, 307 Neb. 748 (2020) (standard of review: de novo on the record for dissolution matters)
Reichert v. Reichert, 246 Neb. 31 (1994) (marital estate includes pension benefits earned during the marriage)
Shockley v. Shockley, 251 Neb. 896 (1997) (contributions before marriage or after dissolution are not marital assets)
Polly v. Polly, 1 Neb. App. 121 (1992) (discussing deferred distribution as the commonly accepted method for dividing retirement benefits)
Koziol v. Koziol, 10 Neb. App. 675 (2001) (discussing present‑value valuation and distribution methods for defined‑benefit plans)
Dycus v. Dycus, 307 Neb. 426 (2020) (factors a court must consider when awarding attorney fees in dissolution)
Leners v. Leners, 302 Neb. 904 (2019) (recognizing courts’ inherent power to award fees for vexatious or bad‑faith litigation conduct)