Seivert v. Alli
309 Neb. 246
| Neb. | 2021Background:
- Seivert filed for dissolution in 2013; trial occurred in July 2019 and decree was entered January 13, 2020. The district court found the parties were validly married on January 26, 2012.
- Primary disputes: whether the parties were putatively married in 1996; appropriate valuation date for marital estate (Alli acquired assets post-separation); valuation of Alli’s business interests; alimony; child support and educational expense obligations; and attorney fees.
- The district court used the trial date to value the marital estate, included post-separation earnings and assets (including a $304,130 account used for children’s school tuition), applied the buy-sell formula to value Alli’s MES interest, and awarded Alli P.C. and related business interests to Alli.
- The decree ordered Alli to pay child support ($8,390/month), alimony ($5,000/month for 60 months), an equalization payment and retirement-account assignment to Seivert (totaling over $1.2 million and assignment of over $800,000), continuing educational expenses for the children, and $50,000 in attorney fees to Seivert.
- Both parties appealed: Alli challenged inclusion of post-separation property, the alimony award, attorney fees, and the educational-expense/account treatment; Seivert cross-appealed the business valuation and the district court’s refusal to treat the parties as putatively married in 1996.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Seivert) | Defendant's Argument (Alli) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Putative marriage (1996) — applicability of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-378 | Parties believed they married in 1996; good-faith belief should invoke putative-spouse relief | § 42-378 does not apply because parties did not complete legal steps to form a marriage in 1996 | Court: § 42-378 requires entry into contract of marriage (license + ceremony); no abuse of discretion in refusing to treat them as putative spouses for 1996 |
| Valuation of Alli’s business interests (Alli P.C./MES) | Buy-sell formula should not be dispositive; expert valuation (income approach) shows higher value | Buy-sell restriction and lack of marketability/control justify using redemption formula | Court: District court permissibly relied on buy‑sell terms as credible evidence of value and did not abuse discretion |
| Valuation date / inclusion of post-separation assets | (Seivert) Trial-date valuation appropriate because marital contributions and children’s care continued; marital estate includes assets tied to marriage | (Alli) Post-separation earnings/investments should not be marital property; using trial date unfairly penalizes him | Court: Trial-date valuation was rationally related to estate and not an abuse of discretion |
| Alimony award ($5,000/mo for 60 mos) | (Seivert) Needs support given career sacrifices and disparity in earning capacity | (Alli) Seivert can earn more; award unnecessary or excessive | Court: Considering circumstances, duration, contributions, and earning capacity, alimony award was reasonable and not patently unfair |
| Attorney fees ($50,000 award to Seivert) | (Seivert) Award appropriate given disparity in earning capacity and successful claims | (Alli) Seivert is a physician and can pay her fees; award unwarranted | Court: Fee award permissibly based on equities, earning capacities, and litigation outcome; no abuse of discretion |
| Educational expenses vs. MES savings account ("double dipping") | (Seivert) Court’s order to continue schooling expenses appropriate; 529s/accounts held for children | (Alli) Court ordered him to pay tuition but also awarded him the tuition account, effectively double-charging him | Court: District court awarded MES savings account to Alli (not to Seivert) and ordering Alli to pay educational expenses was not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Higgins v. Currier, 307 Neb. 748 (Neb. 2020) (standard of review in dissolution: de novo on record with abuse-of-discretion review for discretionary matters)
- Dooling v. Dooling, 303 Neb. 494 (Neb. 2019) (appellate de novo review may give weight to trial court’s witness credibility findings)
- Manker v. Manker, 263 Neb. 944 (Neb. 2002) (§ 42-378 applies only when a marriage has been declared a nullity; putative-spouse relief limited by statute)
- Hicklin v. Hicklin, 244 Neb. 895 (Neb. 1994) (application of § 42-378 where parties completed legal steps to contract marriage despite a legal impediment)
- Brozek v. Brozek, 292 Neb. 681 (Neb. 2016) (discussion that redemption agreements are relevant but not always conclusive for valuation)
- Rohde v. Rohde, 303 Neb. 85 (Neb. 2019) (valuation date should be rationally related to marital estate; reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Schaefer v. Schaefer, 263 Neb. 785 (Neb. 2002) (factors for awarding attorney fees in dissolution matters)
- Moore v. Moore, 302 Neb. 588 (Neb. 2019) (prevailing-party fee awards and consideration of equities in dissolution proceedings)