Seivert v. Alli
309 Neb. 246
| Neb. | 2021Background
- Seivert filed for dissolution in 2013 after Alli moved out; trial occurred in July 2019 and decree entered January 13, 2020.
- Parties disputed whether they married in 1996 (Hawaii) or 2012 (Nebraska); district court found a valid marriage date of January 26, 2012 and rejected putative-marriage treatment for 1996.
- The court used the trial date to value and divide the marital estate, including postseparation earnings that funded an investment account and a 2014 residence.
- The court valued Alli’s corporate/business interests largely by applying the MES buy-sell agreement, awarded the marital portion of business interests to Alli, and set an equalization payment (plus retirement account assignments) in Seivert’s favor.
- Decree: child support to Seivert, alimony $5,000/month for 60 months, attorney fees $50,000, continued obligation for Alli to pay children’s private-school expenses; the MES savings account (~$304,130) was allocated to Alli.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Seivert) | Defendant's Argument (Alli) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether parties should be treated as putatively married in 1996 under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42‑378 | Parties believed in good faith they were married in 1996; putative-spouse relief should apply to enlarge marital estate | No valid marriage in 1996; court should not treat them as putative spouses | Court affirmed: § 42‑378 requires completion of legal steps to enter into marriage; no evidence of license/ceremony in 1996, so no putative‑marriage relief |
| Valuation of Alli’s business interests (Alli P.C./MES) — use of buy‑sell agreement | Buy‑sell redemption price should not be treated as conclusive; expert income approach gave higher value | Buy‑sell terms govern marketability and restrict transfer; valuation should account for formula and discounts | Court affirmed use of buy‑sell terms as reliable evidence of value; trial court did not abuse discretion in preferring valuation that accounted for restrictions |
| Valuation date for marital estate (use of trial date including postseparation earnings) | N/A (Seivert favored inclusion) | Postseparation earnings and assets should not be included; trial date unfairly captures after‑separation accumulation | Court affirmed: trial date valuation was rationally related to estate given circumstances (children’s care by Seivert supported Alli’s later earnings) |
| Award of alimony ($5,000/mo for 60 months) | Alimony justified by disparity in income, contributions to marriage, childcare sacrifices | Alimony unwarranted; Seivert can earn more and overstated expenses | Court affirmed: alimony not untenable or patently unfair given income disparity and Seivert’s career sacrifices |
| Award of attorney fees ($50,000) | N/A (Seivert sought fees) | Seivert can pay own fees as a physician; fee award improper | Court affirmed: fee award permissible under factors (property/alimony awarded, earning capacities, equities); no untenable result |
| Educational‑expense order vs. allocation of MES savings account (alleged double‑dip) | N/A | It was double recovery to require Alli to pay tuition while attributing MES account value to him | Court affirmed: MES account was awarded to Alli; requiring him to pay ongoing tuition was not an abuse of discretion and did not constitute reversible unfairness |
Key Cases Cited
- Higgins v. Currier, 307 Neb. 748 (Neb. 2020) (standard: de novo review with abuse‑of‑discretion standard for custody, support, property, alimony, fees)
- Dooling v. Dooling, 303 Neb. 494 (Neb. 2019) (appellate de novo review but give weight to trial court witness assessments)
- Manker v. Manker, 263 Neb. 944 (Neb. 2002) (interpretation of § 42‑378; putative‑marriage relief limited by statute)
- Hicklin v. Hicklin, 244 Neb. 895 (Neb. 1994) (application of § 42‑378 where parties completed legal steps to contract marriage)
- Brozek v. Brozek, 292 Neb. 681 (Neb. 2016) (discussion that redemption agreements are not necessarily conclusive on value)
- Rohde v. Rohde, 303 Neb. 85 (Neb. 2019) (valuation date should be rationally related to marital property)
- Schaefer v. Schaefer, 263 Neb. 785 (Neb. 2002) (factors for attorney‑fee awards in dissolution proceedings)