Vanderveer v. Vanderveer
964 N.W.2d 694
Neb.2021Background
- Steve and Joy Vanderveer married in 2004, had two children (2006, 2010), and separated in February 2019; Joy filed for dissolution in May 2019.
- Steve is a Costco general manager whose 2019 earnings (~$631,000) were dominated by proceeds from cashing vested Restricted Stock Units (RSUs); Costco grants annual RSUs on a 5‑year graded vesting schedule.
- At trial (Feb 2020) disputed issues included classification/division of unvested RSUs (grants from 2015–2019), whether RSU income should count for child support, and allocation of postseparation credit‑card debt (Joy incurred ≈ $73,656 postseparation).
- The district court: classified 2015–2018 unvested RSUs as marital and 2019 RSUs as nonmarital; ordered Joy physical custody with substantial equal parenting time, set child support excluding RSU income, and awarded Joy $4,000/month alimony for 8 years (no life‑insurance security).
- Both parties moved to alter; Steve appealed and Joy cross‑appealed. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed most rulings but reversed and remanded child support and alimony for recalculation.
Issues
| Issue | Joy's Argument | Steve's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Classification of Joy’s postseparation credit‑card debt | Debt incurred during marriage for family needs is marital | Postseparation debt is nonmarital; court should set it off to the incurring spouse | Debt was marital; no abuse of discretion (debt was incurred during marriage and for joint benefit) |
| Classification/division of unvested RSUs; application of Davidson time rule | RSUs granted during marriage are marital; trial court properly classified 2015–2018 grants as marital | Davidson time rule should be applied to allocate portion attributable to future services (making some RSUs nonmarital) | Court need not apply time rule where party fails to prove RSUs were granted for future services; no abuse of discretion classifying 2015–2018 RSUs as marital |
| Inclusion of RSU income in child‑support calculation | RSU income routinely realized and should be included as income under Guidelines | RSU income is speculative/contingent and should be excluded; or use joint‑custody worksheet | Trial court abused discretion by excluding all RSU income; remanded to recalculate child support on existing record (trial court decides amount/duration of any deviation) |
| Alimony amount/duration and security (life insurance) | Alimony insufficient; life insurance should secure obligation | Alimony excessive; requested graduated payments; life insurance not necessary | Alimony reversed and remanded for recalculation after child support is recalculated; no abuse in declining to require life insurance on this record (no showing of compelling circumstances or cost evidence) |
| Parenting time (equal time) | Joy argued unequal custody preferred (she primary caregiver) | Steve sought joint physical custody with frequent contact | Equal parenting time affirmed; no abuse of discretion (both parents fit; arrangement in children's best interests) |
Key Cases Cited
- Davidson v. Davidson, 254 Neb. 656 (1998) (announced the time‑rule for allocating marital/nonmarital portions of unvested stock options/retention shares)
- Mathews v. Mathews, 267 Neb. 604 (2004) (marital debt includes obligations incurred during marriage for joint benefit)
- Dooling v. Dooling, 303 Neb. 494 (2019) (sets out three‑step equitable property‑division framework)
- Noonan v. Noonan, 261 Neb. 552 (2001) (income presumptions under the Child Support Guidelines; rebuttable presumption to include regular income)
- Hotz v. Hotz, 301 Neb. 102 (2018) (spousal support should be determined after child support is set)