Marshall v. Marshall
298 Neb. 1
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Amy and Brian Marshall married in 1993; Amy suffered a massive stroke in 2003 and later received a Merck (Vioxx) personal injury settlement totaling $330,621.14 net after fees.
- The settlement release was silent as to allocation among categories of damages; nearly all proceeds were spent during the marriage (mortgage payoff, home remodel, business investment, bank account deposits).
- Trial focused on (1) classification/allocation of the personal injury settlement as marital vs. nonmarital property, and (2) calculation of Brian’s monthly income for child support and related alimony determinations.
- The district court found significant personal (nonmarital) losses to Amy and traced $179,604 of settlement funds into the marital home, crediting Amy that amount when awarding the house; it set Brian’s monthly income at $7,000 for child support and awarded Amy alimony $2,000/month for 21 years.
- The Court of Appeals reversed as to the settlement classification (holding the entire settlement marital) and reduced Brian’s income to $6,000/month for child support, remanding for recalculation and reconsideration of alimony.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court granted further review, reversed the Court of Appeals, and directed affirmance of the district court: it upheld (1) partial nonmarital classification of the settlement proceeds traced to the home and (2) the $7,000 monthly income finding; the alimony award was affirmed as not requiring reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Marshall) | Defendant's Argument (Brian) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Classification of personal injury settlement proceeds | Amy: settlement compensates significant personal losses (pain, suffering, disability, lost future earnings); Parde analytic approach permits allocation even when agreement is silent; she traced nonmarital portion ($179,604) to home payments | Brian: settlement silent on allocation; presumption all proceeds are marital; Amy failed to prove a specific nonmarital allocation | Court upheld district court: analytic Parde approach allows allocation without explicit allocation in release; Amy met burden by credible testimony and tracing $179,604 to the home as nonmarital credit; Court of Appeals reversed on this point was reversed |
| Child support — calculation of Brian’s income | Amy: Brian’s true monthly income is higher (proposed ~$11,041.25) when in-kind benefits and bank deposits considered | Brian: lower income (~$3,600); disputed sources of deposits and in-kind benefits should not be fully imputed | Court upheld district court’s $7,000/month finding: conflicting evidence and credibility determinations justified splitting the difference; appellate recalculation to $6,000 was reversed |
| Alimony award | Amy: alimony appropriate as awarded by district court ($2,000/month for 21 years) | Brian: contest of underlying asset division and income calculations affects alimony | Court found no abuse of discretion in the alimony award and held reversal on other grounds unnecessary; Court of Appeals’ remand on alimony was moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Parde v. Parde, 258 Neb. 101 (1999) (adopts analytic approach: allocate settlement proceeds by nature of compensation; personal pain/suffering/disfigurement/nonmarital; past wages/medical expenses/marital diminution are marital)
- Bandow v. Bandow, 794 P.2d 1346 (Alaska 1990) (trial courts may make reasonable apportionments of settlement proceeds even absent mathematical precision)
- Stephens v. Stephens, 297 Neb. 188 (2017) (reiterates three-step statutory framework for equitable division and that property may be a mix of marital and nonmarital interests)