Vanderveer v. Vanderveer
310 Neb. 196
| Neb. | 2021Background:
- Married in 2004; two children (2006, 2010); separated Feb 2019; dissolution filed May 2019.
- Steve is a long‑time Costco general manager: 2019 W‑2 reported ~$631,000 (base ~125k, bonus ~42k, RSU proceeds >461k). Costco grants annual RSUs with a 5‑year graded vesting schedule; 2019 grant occurred after separation.
- Joy worked part time as a barista with limited earnings and planned further education; she accrued roughly $73,656 in post‑separation credit‑card debt used for family necessities.
- The temporary order required Steve to pay child support and many household expenses; historically the parties relied on vested RSU proceeds to pay down debt.
- Key disputes at trial: classification/division of unvested RSUs (2015–2019 grants), whether RSU income should be included in child support, classification of post‑separation credit card debt, alimony (amount/duration/security), and parenting time.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Steve) | Defendant's Argument (Joy) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Classification of Joy's post‑separation credit‑card debt | Post‑separation debts are nonmarital and should be assigned to the incurring spouse | Purchases were for family/children and thus marital | Debt incurred during the marriage for joint benefit is marital; court did not abuse discretion classifying Joy's post‑separation debt as marital |
| Classification/division of unvested RSUs; application of Davidson time‑rule | 2015–2018 RSUs should be apportioned under Davidson time‑rule; 2019 grant is nonmarital | RSUs granted during marriage are marital; 2019 grant (post‑sep) nonmarital | 2015–2018 unvested RSUs were marital; 2019 grant nonmarital. Trial court properly declined to apply Davidson time‑rule because Steve failed to prove RSUs were compensation for future services |
| Child support — inclusion of RSU income; worksheet/deviation | RSU income is speculative and should be excluded; use joint‑custody worksheet and reduce via deviation | RSU income is regular and should be included in total monthly income | Reversed: excluding all RSU income was an abuse of discretion. Remanded to recalculate child support on existing record including appropriate RSU income (trial court to determine amount/duration of any deviation) |
| Alimony amount/duration and security (life insurance) | Alimony award excessive | Alimony insufficient; require life insurance as security | Alimony remanded for recalculation after child support is recalculated. Court did not require life insurance—no evidence of compelling need |
| Parenting time (equal parenting time) | Continue roughly equal parenting time | Joy sought sole physical custody | Affirmed: equal parenting time found in children's best interests; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Davidson v. Davidson, 254 Neb. 656, 578 N.W.2d 848 (1998) (unvested stock options/retention shares can be marital; announced the "time rule" to apportion grants based on whether they compensate past, present, or future services)
- Mathews v. Mathews, 267 Neb. 604, 676 N.W.2d 42 (2004) (marital debt includes obligations incurred during the marriage for the joint benefit)
- Cornwell v. Cornwell, 309 Neb. 156, 959 N.W.2d 243 (2021) (standard of review in dissolution appeals: de novo on the record with abuse‑of‑discretion review for many family law determinations)
- Dooling v. Dooling, 303 Neb. 494, 930 N.W.2d 481 (2019) (three‑step framework for equitable division of marital property)
- Noonan v. Noonan, 261 Neb. 552, 624 N.W.2d 314 (2001) (income that can be reasonably expected should be included in child‑support calculations; rebuttable presumption)
- Hotz v. Hotz, 301 Neb. 102, 917 N.W.2d 467 (2018) (principle that both parents equally share the duty to support children; guidance on income inclusion)
- Fetherkile v. Fetherkile, 299 Neb. 76, 907 N.W.2d 275 (2018) (burden on party asserting a debt is nonmarital)