Lewis v. Lewis
A-16-248
Neb. Ct. App.Apr 25, 2017Background
- Jason and Melissa Lewis were married in 1995 and have two children (Jordyn, 2004; Kyleigh, 2009).
- They separated in 2014, with Melissa obtaining temporary physical custody and Jason receiving limited parenting time.
- A trial occurred in late 2015, after which the district court awarded Melissa sole legal and physical custody with Jason having specific parenting time and child support obligations.
- The decree also addressed tax exemptions, property division, and debt allocation, with no alimony or attorney-fee awards.
- Melissa was awarded the Denali and portions of Jason’s 401(k); Jason kept the marital residence and most debts; Melissa retained the Denali and some personal property.
- Both parties challenged the decree on appeal or cross-appeal, focusing on custody, tax exemptions, estate division, alimony, and attorney fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Custody allocation legality | Jason argues for joint custody; seeks reconsideration of fitness findings. | Melissa contends sole custody best for children's stability given parental communication failures. | Affirmed sole custody to Melissa; no abuse of discretion. |
| Dependency exemptions | Jason contends exemptions should not all go to Melissa. | Melissa is custodial parent and presumptively entitled. | Affirmed exemptions to Melissa for all eligible years. |
| Division of marital estate | Jason challenges asset/debt distribution as inequitable. | Melissa supports district court’s division under 3-step process. | Affirmed district court’s division; no clear abuse of discretion. |
| Alimony | Jason argues Melissa should receive alimony due to income disparity. | Melissa seeks alimony; court should consider earnings and equities. | Denied alimony; not untenable given total equities. |
| Attorney fees | Jason argues Melissa should pay her fees. | Waived/denied due to overall equities and lack of necessity. | Denied attorney fees; supported by court’s reasoning. |
Key Cases Cited
- Klimek v. Klimek, 18 Neb. App. 82 (2009) (custody best-interests framework; parental fitness not assumed of both)
- Burcham v. Burcham, Neb. App. 323, 886 N.W.2d 536 (2016) (factors for attorney fees and rebuttal of local-rule waivers)
- Donald v. Donald, 296 Neb. 123 (2017) (joint custody considerations and stability)
- Anderson v. Anderson, 290 Neb. 530, 861 N.W.2d 113 (2015) (tax exemptions as economic benefit akin to alimony/child support)
- Kibler v. Kibler, 287 Neb. 1027, 845 N.W.2d 585 (2014) (court may waive its rules under appropriate circumstances)
- Becker v. Becker, 20 Neb. App. 922, 834 N.W.2d 620 (2013) (alimony considerations and discretion)
- Marshall v. Marshall, 24 Neb. App. 254, 885 N.W.2d 742 (2016) (principles of equitable division of marital property)
- State v. Henry, 292 Neb. 834, 875 N.W.2d 374 (2016) (appellate de novo review of dissolution orders)