Simons v. Simons
312 Neb. 136
Neb.2022Background
- Jonathan and Heather Simons married in 2005 and executed a premarital agreement that defined "Marital Estate" by title and allowed additions only by written agreement or affirmative titling acts; the agreement also provided a waiver and a scheduleed lump-sum payment to Heather if the marriage ended after 10–15 years ($150,000).
- The couple purchased Backyard Adventures (later Backyard Playworld) in 2009; Jonathan formed LLCs (JBS Kids Play, DogWatch, JBS Properties) titled solely in his name; Jonathan’s parents gifted $375,000 toward the purchase.
- Heather worked extensively in the business, was held out to employees and the public as an owner (signage, business cards), contributed labor and ideas, and was a co‑signatory on the business bank account; she testified she believed they owned the business together.
- Heather alleged unjust enrichment/constructive trust and sought equitable relief; the court ordered Heather’s pleadings amended to conform to evidence and, after trial, imposed a constructive trust over one‑half of the LLCs, valuing the combined entities at ~$2.278M.
- The court also (1) treated the $375,000 gift as part of the marital estate, (2) initially included a truck in the marital estate (later vacated on appeal as duplicative), (3) ordered Jonathan to pay the $150,000 lump sum under the premarital agreement, (4) awarded Heather $5,500/month alimony for 72 months, and (5) required life insurance sufficient to secure support obligations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jonathan) | Defendant's Argument (Heather) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amendment of pleadings / due process | Trial court abused discretion by allowing post‑trial amendment to plead constructive trust and deprived Jonathan of timely notice | Issues were disclosed in pretrial letter; amendment merely conformed pleadings to evidence; no prejudice | Court: Amendment proper under Neb. Ct. R. Pldg. §6‑1115(b); no due process violation because Jonathan had actual notice and no prejudice |
| Constructive trust vs. valid premarital agreement | Constructive trust conflicts with prenup and cannot override title‑based allocation | Constructive trust can recognize real ownership where equity requires; it can coexist with a prenup and make assets marital under agreement | Court: Constructive trust may coexist with premarital agreement and can be used to establish title for purposes of the agreement |
| Sufficiency of evidence for constructive trust | Evidence insufficient; relief used to adjust equities | Heather presented clear and convincing evidence of implied joint venture, representations, labor, and unjust enrichment | Court: On de novo review (giving weight to trial court’s credibility findings), evidence supports constructive trust over one‑half of LLCs |
| Valuation method (fair value v. fair market value) | Fair market value (with discounts) is appropriate; trial court erred in accepting Heather’s expert’s fair value opinion | Fair value appropriate in divorce where sale is not contemplated; trial court may weigh experts | Court: Trial court did not abuse discretion in crediting Heather’s expert’s fair value methodology and valuation |
| Treatment of $375,000 gift and truck | Gift should be set off as Jonathan’s separate property; truck already included in LLC valuation so should not be separately divided | Gift became part of the business (and thus marital under the constructive trust); truck titled to business and is part of constructive trust | Court: Gift became part of the business and was not set off; court vacated the portion of decree that double‑listed the truck (truck is part of constructive trust) |
| Lump‑sum under prenup, alimony, and life insurance | Lump sum and life insurance orders conflict with prenup; alimony excessive given Heather’s business role | Lump sum is provided by prenup in addition to division of marital estate; alimony supported by income disparity and caregiving history; prenup does not obligate life insurance post‑dissolution | Court: $150,000 award under prenup proper in addition to constructive trust; alimony award not an abuse of discretion; life insurance order does not duplicate prenup obligations and is proper |
Key Cases Cited
- ProData Computer Servs. v. Ponec, 256 Neb. 228, 590 N.W.2d 176 (1999) (equity actions imposing constructive trusts reviewed de novo with deference to credibility findings)
- Manker v. Manker, 263 Neb. 944, 644 N.W.2d 522 (2002) (affirming constructive trust where one spouse placed marital property in sole name and misled other)
- Dreesen Enterprises v. Dreesen, 308 Neb. 433, 954 N.W.2d 874 (2021) (discussing circumstances required to impose a constructive trust)
- Wait v. Cornette, 259 Neb. 850, 612 N.W.2d 905 (2000) (definition and equitable nature of constructive trust)
- Stephens v. Stephens, 297 Neb. 188, 899 N.W.2d 582 (2017) (all property acquired during marriage presumptively marital under equitable division)
- Dycus v. Dycus, 307 Neb. 426, 949 N.W.2d 357 (2020) (procedural due process standards and questions of law regarding procedures)