Seivert v. Alli
309 Neb. 246
| Neb. | 2021Background
- Seivert filed for dissolution in 2013 after Alli moved out; trial occurred in July 2019 and two children remained minors at decree.
- Parties disputed whether they married in June 1996 (Hawaii) or January 26, 2012 (Nebraska); district court found a valid marriage in 2012 and refused to treat the parties as putatively married in 1996 under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-378.
- The district court used the trial date to identify and value the marital estate, including assets Alli accumulated after separation (e.g., investment account and a 2014 residence), and awarded an equalization payment and retirement-account assignment to Seivert.
- Major contested valuation issue: Alli’s corporate practice (Alli P.C.) and its minority interest in MES — experts differed; the court relied on the MES buy‑sell formula and awarded Alli the business entities while assigning a modest marital value.
- Decree: Seivert received sole custody, child support ($8,390/month), alimony ($5,000/month for 60 months), attorney fees ($50,000), ongoing obligation that Alli pay private school tuition; a joint savings account used for tuition (~$304,130) was awarded to Alli but Seivert was made constructive trustee/custodian of children’s educational accounts.
- Both parties appealed multiple rulings; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court in all respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Seivert) | Defendant's Argument (Alli) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Application of putative‑marriage statute (§ 42‑378) | Parties acted in good faith as married since 1996; § 42‑378 should apply even without documentary proof of a license/ceremony | Court properly should require completed legal steps to form a marriage; parties were married in 2012 | Court: § 42‑378 applies only when parties entered into the contract of marriage (i.e., completed required legal steps); no putative marriage in 1996; affirmed district court |
| Valuation of Alli’s business (Alli P.C. / MES interest) | Court abused discretion by treating buy‑sell formula as controlling and undervaluing practice; expert Harr’s income/market analyses were correct | Buy‑sell restrictions and lack of marketability/control require discounting; buy‑sell formula is relevant and reliable | Court: buy‑sell terms were a proper and persuasive valuation measure here; district court did not abuse discretion |
| Valuation date; inclusion of post‑separation earnings/assets | Post‑separation earnings and acquisitions should be excluded; trial date valuation unfairly captured Alli’s later earnings | Trial date is rational and permissible; Seivert’s childcare during separation supported inclusion | Court: valuation at trial was rationally related to marital estate given facts; no abuse of discretion |
| Alimony award ($5,000/mo x 60 mos) | Seivert: award appropriate given income disparity and sacrifices for children | Alli: Seivert can earn more and did not need alimony | Court: considered statutory factors and disparities; award not untenable or patently unfair; affirmed |
| Attorney fees ($50,000) | Seivert: fees appropriate given disparity and that she prevailed on key issues | Alli: Seivert can afford counsel; award unjustified | Court: fees discretionary based on equities, earning capacity, and outcome; award not untenable |
| Educational‑expense order vs. MES account (~$304k) | (implicit) Seivert: entitled to educational accounts for children | Alli: ‘‘double dipping’’ — ordered to pay tuition while account (used for tuition) counted against him in property division | Court: MES account was awarded to Alli; court did not double count improperly and did not abuse discretion assigning tuition obligation |
Key Cases Cited
- Higgins v. Currier, 307 Neb. 748 (standard of review in dissolution matters)
- Dooling v. Dooling, 303 Neb. 494 (de novo review and deference to trial court credibility findings)
- Manker v. Manker, 263 Neb. 944 (interpretation of § 42‑378 and limits on putative‑marriage relief)
- Hicklin v. Hicklin, 244 Neb. 895 (application of § 42‑378 where marriage contract steps were completed)
- Brozek v. Brozek, 292 Neb. 681 (discussion of redemption/buy‑sell agreements and valuation evidence)
- Rohde v. Rohde, 303 Neb. 85 (valuation date must be rationally related to marital estate)
- Schaefer v. Schaefer, 263 Neb. 785 (factors for attorney‑fee awards in dissolution)
- In re Watterworth, 149 N.H. 442 (trial courts may rely on redemption agreements when experts ignore them)