Cornwell v. Cornwell, 309 Neb. 156

Daniel and Melanie Cornwell married in 1999; Daniel worked for the Maryland State Police for 11 years during the marriage and retired in 2010.
Daniel’s defined‑benefit pension has been in pay status since 2010, was later characterized in part as a disability pension (no lump‑sum buyout for the plan), and the parties stipulated 49% of the pension is marital.
Melanie’s expert valued the pension’s total present value at $2,561,009 (49% = $1,254,894); 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 valuation, used the immediate offset method, awarded the pension to Daniel, and ordered Daniel to make an equalization cash payment of $403,892 payable $100,000/year until satisfied; each party was to pay their own fees.
Daniel appealed the use of the immediate offset method; Melanie cross‑appealed the denial of attorney fees.
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court on both the pension valuation/distribution and the denial of attorney fees.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Daniel)	Defendant's Argument (Melanie)	Held
Proper method to divide pension (immediate offset vs. deferred/DRO)	Immediate offset is speculative and difficult to value; court should use deferred distribution/DRO because present value is unreliable and marital estate lacks sufficient liquid assets for equalization	Immediate offset is permissible; expert valuation supports present value; immediate offset gives a clean break and avoids potential manipulation of pension	Affirmed immediate offset. Court reasoned pension in pay status made present value reliable, evidence of possible manipulation, sizable overall assets, and court provided multi‑year equalization plan
Award of attorney fees and costs	(N/A) — appellant sought reversal of valuation outcome; court should have considered fee shifting due to alleged obstruction	Melanie argued Daniel’s conduct throughout litigation justified fee award	Affirmed denial of fees. Court found both sides prolonged litigation; no abuse of discretion in declining to award fees

Higgins v. Currier, 307 Neb. 748, 950 N.W.2d 631 (sets de novo on‑record review and abuse‑of‑discretion standard for dissolution matters)
Reichert v. Reichert, 246 Neb. 31, 516 N.W.2d 600 (marital estate includes only pension portion earned during marriage)
Shockley v. Shockley, 251 Neb. 896, 560 N.W.2d 777 (contributions before marriage or after dissolution are not marital assets)
Polly v. Polly, 1 Neb. App. 121, 487 N.W.2d 558 (discusses acceptance of deferred distribution as widely used method)
Koziol v. Koziol, 10 Neb. App. 675, 636 N.W.2d 890 (discusses valuation methods for defined‑benefit plans)
Dycus v. Dycus, 307 Neb. 426, 949 N.W.2d 357 (factors for awarding attorney fees in dissolution)
Leners v. Leners, 302 Neb. 904, 925 N.W.2d 704 (recognizes inherent power to award fees for bad‑faith, vexatious litigation conduct)