945 N.W.2d 902
Neb. Ct. App.2020Background
- Timothy and Martha Grothen divorced in 2012 under a consent decree: Timothy agreed to pay $2,500/month alimony for 15 years and a $600,000 equalization cash payment to Martha.
- Timothy is an experienced farmer; since the decree he lost leased acreage, experienced steep crop-price declines, and his farming income fell (2018 tax return showed a farm loss).
- Despite lower farm income, Timothy’s net worth rose (to about $1.82 million in 2018) largely because he retained income-producing farmland awarded in the divorce.
- Timothy stopped regular alimony payments in 2016, was found in contempt in 2017, made a partial payment in 2018, and remained several thousand dollars in arrears at the modification hearing.
- Martha (age 56) runs a small, unprofitable gift shop, has significant health issues limiting employment, and has a much smaller net worth (about $350,000) and has relied on her equalization payment and alimony for support.
- Timothy moved in 2018 to modify alimony based on reduced income; the district court denied modification, found Timothy’s inability-to-borrow testimony not credible, declined modification to avoid gross inequity to Martha, and awarded Martha $8,573.75 in attorney fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether alimony should be modified due to Timothy's decreased income | Timothy: farm income dropped and expenses (rent) rose, so alimony should be reduced | Martha: decree was a consent agreement; Timothy received income-producing property and increased net worth; modifying would produce gross inequity | Denied — consent decrees are not modified absent fraud or gross inequity; court found no gross inequity and affirmed denial (abuse-of-discretion standard) |
| Whether Timothy’s failure to pay was willful and subject to unclean-hands doctrine | Timothy: court erred in finding willfulness / applying unclean hands | Martha: Timothy willfully stopped payments and was in contempt; unclean hands bars relief | District court found willfulness and applied unclean hands, but appellate court declined to decide the unclean-hands issue because denial on other grounds made it unnecessary to reach |
| Whether attorney fees should be awarded to Martha | Timothy: fees not justified / improper | Martha: prevailing party; Timothy’s willful nonpayment and her financial need justify fees; fees requested were reasonable | Affirmed — trial court’s award was within discretion; it considered case nature, finances, results, and found amount reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Ryder v. Ryder, 290 Neb. 648 (2015) (abuse-of-discretion standard for motions to vacate or modify decree)
- Carlson v. Carlson, 299 Neb. 526 (2018) (consent-decree provisions on property/maintenance not vacated or modified absent fraud or gross inequity)
- Hoshor v. Hoshor, 254 Neb. 743 (1998) (consent decrees treated as agreements and accorded greater force)
- Desjardins v. Desjardins, 239 Neb. 878 (1992) (change in income may be considered in modification analysis)
- Metcalf v. Metcalf, 278 Neb. 258 (2009) (compare parties’ finances at decree and at modification request)
- Binder v. Binder, 291 Neb. 255 (2015) (court may consider property, including premarital land, when assessing alimony)
- Moore v. Moore, 302 Neb. 588 (2019) (attorney-fee awards in dissolution actions are discretionary and subject to specified considerations)
- Wiedel v. Wiedel, 300 Neb. 13 (2018) (income-producing farmland is relevant to alimony determinations)