Leners v. Leners
302 Neb. 904
| Neb. | 2019Background
- Sharon and Stacy Leners married in 1997 and separated; Sharon filed for dissolution in 2016. They have two children, one of whom was 15 at trial.
- A temporary order had given the parties joint custody with a parenting-time schedule tailored to Stacy’s rotating work travel (specific days each month).
- Trial produced sealed in-camera testimony from the 15-year-old; both parents had generally positive relationships with the child. Stacy sought shared legal and physical custody and continuation of the temporary schedule; Sharon sought sole custody and proposed a different parenting-time plan.
- Financially, Sharon is a nurse with pension accounts; Stacy works for Union Pacific and has Railroad Retirement benefits (Tier I and Tier II) plus a 401(k). A Railroad Retirement statement estimated Tier I $956 and divisible Tier II/etc. $253.50 (or $360) monthly; it also estimated a potential divorced-spouse benefit.
- The district court found Stacy more credible, awarded shared legal and physical custody with parenting time following the temporary schedule, assigned each party their own pensions/401(k)s, entered judgment awarding Sharon $50,019 and ordered Sharon to pay Stacy $9,000 in attorney fees. Sharon appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sharon) | Defendant's Argument (Stacy) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court misinterpreted federal law and should have equitably divided Stacy’s Railroad Retirement (Tier II) benefits | Court erred by not dividing Tier II and by assuming Sharon would get a divorced-spouse annuity | Court acted within discretion in valuing/dividing pensions and awarding each party their own pension as part of an equitable split | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; mistaken assumption about divorced-spouse annuity favored Stacy but overall division was equitable |
| Whether shared custody and equal parenting time are in the child’s best interests | Sharon: joint/shared custody and the temporary schedule harm the 15‑year‑old; sought sole custody | Stacy: shared custody and the temporary schedule fit his work schedule and preserve parent–child time | Affirmed: shared custody and the adopted parenting schedule were not untenable given parents’ fitness, child’s preference, and Stacy’s work schedule |
| Whether court erred by failing to allocate all child expenses (e.g., extracurriculars) without requiring mutual agreement | Sharon: decree should have required equal division of all reasonable child expenses without needing mutual agreement | Stacy: court reasonably required mutual agreement for extracurriculars given acrimony and disputed reasonableness | Affirmed: court did not abuse discretion; statute does not compel unilateral allocation and reasonableness must be shown |
| Whether award of $9,000 attorney fees to Stacy was an abuse of discretion | Sharon: fees award was improper | Stacy: fees warranted by Sharon’s vexatious, dilatory, and damaging conduct | Affirmed: fees upheld under court’s inherent-power authority based on Sharon’s misconduct and candor issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, 439 U.S. 572 (1979) (distinguishes Tier I and Tier II railroad retirement benefits)
- Shearer v. Shearer, 270 Neb. 178 (2005) (Railroad Retirement Board must honor divorce decrees characterizing Tier II as divisible property)
- Webster v. Webster, 271 Neb. 788 (2006) (trial court has broad discretion valuing/dividing pension rights)
- Vogel v. Vogel, 262 Neb. 1030 (2002) (child’s preference is entitled to consideration if based on sound reasoning)
- Connolly v. Connolly, 299 Neb. 103 (2018) (appellate de novo review and abuse-of-discretion standard in dissolution matters)
- Fetherkile v. Fetherkile, 299 Neb. 76 (2018) (courts’ inherent power to award attorney fees for vexatious/dilatory conduct)
- Donald v. Donald, 296 Neb. 123 (2017) (joint physical custody considerations and parental maturity)
- Gerber v. P & L Finance Co., 301 Neb. 463 (2018) (statutory interpretation is reviewed de novo)