Marshall v. Marshall
298 Neb. 1
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Amy and Brian Marshall divorced; trial held Oct 2014; Merck personal-injury settlement proceeds were largely spent during marriage; district court classified $179,604 of the settlement as Amy’s nonmarital share against a backdrop of competing evidence; Court of Appeals reversed on settlement- proceeds issues and remanded for recalculation of the marital estate and support/alimony; Nebraska Supreme Court granted review and reversed the Court of Appeals, affirming the district court’s handling and remanding with directions to affirm the decree.
- Settlement proceeds were silent on allocation but were traced to marital assets; the district court allocated nonmarital credit to Amy for $179,604 used to pay the mortgage and remodel the home, and credited Brian for other expenditures; the court valued and divided assets accordingly; the Court of Appeals criticized the allocation and remanded for recomputation.
- Brian’s claimed total monthly income for child support was disputed; the district court used a blended figure ($7,000) after weighing conflicting evidence; the Court of Appeals set a lower figure (about $6,000) and remanded; the Supreme Court upheld the district court’s $7,000 figure.
- The Court also addressed alimony, with the Court of Appeals reversing as moot after remand; the Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s alimony decision on review.
- The governing framework is Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (three-step property division: classify, value, divide), applying the analytic approach from Parde v. Parde to allocate mixed settlement proceeds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Classification of Merck settlement proceeds | Amy: proceeds partly nonmarital; burden met | Brian: entire proceeds marital | Partial nonmarital allocation upheld (not abuse) |
| Child support income calculation | Amy argues Court erred by accepting given figures | Brian: court should rely on evidence; split-difference permitted | No abuse; $7,000 monthly income for Brian affirmed |
| Effect of alimony remand on final award | Amy argues alimony should be reconsidered | Brian argues moot/alterable after remand | Alimony reconsideration deemed moot; affirmed deferentially |
Key Cases Cited
- Parde v. Parde, 258 Neb. 101 (1999) (analytic approach to allocate settlement proceeds; burden on claimant; proportionate marital/nonmarital treatment)
- Donald v. Donald, 296 Neb. 123 (2017) (equitable distribution framework; three-step process under § 42-365)
- Gangwish v. Gangwish, 267 Neb. 901 (2004) (income consideration in child support; flexible, fact-specific inquiry)
- Erin W. v. Charissa W., 297 Neb. 143 (2017) (flexible approach to income for child support; in-kind benefits allowed)