Grothen v. Grothen, 308 Neb. 28

2012 dissolution decree incorporated a property settlement: Timothy received most farmland, paid Martha $600,000, and agreed to pay $2,500/month alimony for 15 years.
In 2018 Timothy sought modification, alleging a substantial drop in farm income (2011 farm income vs 2018 farm loss) due to commodity-price declines and reduced rented acreage.
Evidence showed Timothy’s net worth rose (primarily land appreciation) while his cash farm income fell; Martha’s net worth declined and she had health issues and limited earning capacity.
District court applied Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (good cause/material change), found the income decline was foreseeable to an experienced farmer, found Timothy could borrow to meet payments, found willful nonpayment (unclean hands), denied modification, and awarded attorney fees to Martha.
Court of Appeals affirmed but applied a "fraud or gross inequity" standard (relying on Carlson v. Carlson) to agreed alimony provisions; Nebraska Supreme Court granted further review.
Supreme Court held the proper standard is § 42-365’s "good cause" (material and substantial change), ruled the district court applied that standard correctly, and affirmed the denial of modification (while noting the Court of Appeals erred in articulating the standard).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Timothy)	Defendant's Argument (Martha)	Held
Proper legal standard to modify alimony contained in a property settlement	§ 42-365 "good cause" (material & substantial change) governs modification	If alimony is part of an agreed property settlement, change should be tested by fraud or gross inequity standard	Held: § 42-365 (good cause/material change) applies unless parties expressly precluded modification
Whether Timothy's decreased farm income justified modification	Substantial income decline since decree justifies reducing alimony	Income fluctuation was foreseeable; overall relative economic circumstances still favor denying reduction	Held: No material and substantial change shown; district court did not abuse discretion
Whether alimony should be based solely on income (not assets)	Alimony should focus on income; Timothy’s income drop mandates reduction	Alimony considers relative economic circumstances (income, earning capacity, assets); assets matter	Held: Income is important but not exclusive; court properly considered assets/income together
Effect of Timothy’s nonpayment and award of attorney fees / unclean hands	Nonpayment resulted from reduced income; should not bar modification	Timothy willfully failed to pay; unclean hands bars modification and warrants fees	Held: Court of Appeals affirmed district court’s denial and fee award; Supreme Court affirmed result (did not reverse fee ruling)

Carlson v. Carlson, 299 Neb. 526 (2018) (applied fraud/gross inequity standard to post-majority child support; Supreme Court cautioned against extending that standard to alimony)
Metcalf v. Metcalf, 278 Neb. 258 (2009) (defines “good cause” as a material and substantial change in circumstances)
Reinsch v. Reinsch, 259 Neb. 564 (2000) (fraud/gross inequity standard does not apply to modification of child support; material change rule governs)
Euler v. Euler, 207 Neb. 4 (1980) (statutes § 42-365 and § 42-366 read together; alimony in a consent/property settlement decree remains subject to modification unless expressly precluded)
Desjardins v. Desjardins, 239 Neb. 878 (1992) (consent-decree alimony may be modified under § 42-365 for good cause)
Dooling v. Dooling, 303 Neb. 494 (2019) (alimony consideration: income, earning capacity, and general equities; not a tool to equalize incomes)
Hotz v. Hotz, 301 Neb. 102 (2018) (addresses child-support income calculation; not a limitation that alimony exclude asset considerations)
Binder v. Binder, 291 Neb. 255 (2015) (no precise mathematical formula for alimony calculation)