Vanderveer v. Vanderveer
310 Neb. 196
| Neb. | 2021Background
- Steve and Joy Vanderveer married in 2004, had two children (2006, 2010), and separated in Feb 2019; Joy filed for dissolution in May 2019.
- Steve was a Costco general manager whose 2019 W-2 reported ~$631,000 (base salary, bonus, and large income from cashing vested restricted stock units (RSUs)); RSUs were granted annually and subject to a 5‑year graded vesting schedule.
- Disputes at trial centered on classification/division of unvested RSUs (grants from 2015–2019), whether RSU income should be included in child support, allocation of postseparation credit‑card debt, custody/parenting time, and alimony.
- Trial court: classified 2015–2018 unvested RSUs as marital and 2019 RSUs as nonmarital; awarded Joy physical custody (joint legal custody), an equal/alternating parenting schedule, child support ($1,600/mo after deviation), and alimony $4,000/mo for 8 years; excluded RSU income from child support.
- Both parties appealed; Supreme Court affirmed most rulings but reversed and remanded child support and alimony for recalculation because exclusion of RSU income was an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Classification of Joy’s postseparation credit‑card debt | Steve: postseparation debts are nonmarital and should be set off to the incurring spouse (urged bright‑line pre‑separation rule) | Joy: debts were incurred during marriage for joint benefit and thus marital | Affirmed: debts classified marital — marital debt = obligations incurred during marriage for joint benefit; rejected bright‑line pre‑separation rule; burden on proponent to prove nonmarital. |
| Unvested RSUs — Davidson time‑rule application | Steve: apply Davidson time rule to apportion 2015–2018 RSUs (some nonmarital) | Joy: 2015–2018 RSUs are marital; Steve bears burden to prove portion tied to future services | Affirmed classification of 2015–2018 as marital; court did not apply time rule because Steve failed to prove RSUs were granted for future services (burden on proponent). |
| Inclusion of RSU income in child support | Steve: RSU income speculative/not guaranteed; exclude and compute support on salary/bonus only | Joy: RSU grants and cashouts are regular and should be included in total monthly income under Guidelines | Reversed: blanket exclusion of RSU income was abuse of discretion — RSU income averaged ~$357k; remand to recalc child support on existing record including appropriate RSU income and any justified deviation. |
| Parenting time and worksheet selection | Steve: parenting plan effectively joint physical custody — court should use joint custody worksheet | Joy: sought sole physical custody; opposed equal parenting time | Affirmed equal parenting time — both parents fit and schedule found in children’s best interests; worksheet/child support issues remanded but custody award upheld. |
| Alimony security (life insurance) and amount/duration | Steve: contested amount/duration and sought graduated payments | Joy: alimony insufficient and court should require life insurance to secure payments | Alimony amount/duration reversed and remanded for recalculation after child support recalculation; refusal to require life insurance affirmed (no evidence of cost or compelling need). |
Key Cases Cited
- Davidson v. Davidson, 254 Neb. 656 (Neb. 1998) (unvested employee stock options and retention shares are marital when accumulated during marriage; announced time‑rule for apportionment based on whether grants compensate past/present/future services)
- Mathews v. Mathews, 267 Neb. 604 (Neb. 2004) (marital debt includes obligations incurred during marriage for the joint benefit of the parties)
- Dooling v. Dooling, 303 Neb. 494 (Neb. 2019) (describing three‑step equitable property division and standards for custody/support review)
- Noonan v. Noonan, 261 Neb. 552 (Neb. 2001) (rebuttable presumption to include regularly earned income in child support calculations)
- Hotz v. Hotz, 301 Neb. 102 (Neb. 2018) (child support guidelines recognize equal duty of parents and require consideration of total monthly income)
- Fetherkile v. Fetherkile, 299 Neb. 76 (Neb. 2018) (party asserting a debt is nonmarital bears the burden of proof)