Summary
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed a dissolution decree addressing the parties’ marriage date, division and valuation of marital property, alimony, child support, attorney fees, and educational expenses. The court held that the Nebraska putative-marriage statute did not apply because the parties had not completed the legal steps necessary to enter into a marriage contract in 1996, and it upheld the district court’s rulings concerning the marital estate and Alli’s business interests.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the parties could be treated as putatively married in 1996 under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-378 despite the absence of proof that they completed the legal steps necessary to enter into a marriage contract.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by relying on the terms of a buy-sell agreement in valuing Alli's business interests.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by using the date of trial to identify and value the marital estate, including property acquired or earnings received after separation and filing of the dissolution complaint.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by awarding Seivert $5,000 per month in alimony for 60 months.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by awarding Seivert $50,000 in attorney fees.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by requiring Alli to pay the minor children's educational expenses while attributing the value of the account used for those expenses to Alli in the property division.
Holdings
- Section 42-378 applies only when the parties completed the necessary legal steps to enter into a contract of marriage and that marriage was later declared a nullity; a good-faith belief in marriage, cohabitation, or holding oneself out as married is insufficient by itself.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion by considering and ultimately relying on the buy-sell agreement's formula in valuing Alli's interest in the limited liability company.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion by using the date of trial to identify and value the marital estate.
- The $5,000-per-month alimony award for 60 months was not untenable or patently unfair and therefore was not an abuse of discretion.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding Seivert $50,000 in attorney fees.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion by requiring Alli to continue paying the minor children's educational expenses while awarding him the account used to pay those expenses and considering its value in the property division.
Key quotations
“To obtain relief under § 42-378, a party must “enter[] into the contract of marriage in good faith supposing the other to be capable of contracting” only for the “marriage” to be “declared a nullity” (emphasis supplied).” (309 Neb. at 256-257)
“The statute does not apply merely because a party believes that he or she is validly married or has a subjective desire to be married.” (309 Neb. at 257)
Factual background
The parties disputed when, if ever, they married. Seivert claimed they entered into a marriage in Hawaii in 1996 and should be treated as putatively married from that time, while the district court found they were validly married in Nebraska on January 26, 2012. They had four children, and Seivert provided nearly exclusive care for the minor children after the parties separated in 2013 while Alli continued his lucrative medical practice. The district court used the date of trial to value the marital estate, relied in part on a buy-sell agreement to value Alli's business interests, awarded Seivert alimony and attorney fees, and required Alli to continue paying the minor children's private-school expenses.
Procedural history
Seivert filed a dissolution complaint in 2013. After trial in July 2019, the district court entered a decree on January 13, 2020, finding that the parties married in Nebraska on January 26, 2012, awarding Seivert custody, child support, alimony, attorney fees, and an equalization payment, and dividing the marital estate. The district court overruled both parties' posttrial motions, after which Alli appealed and Seivert cross-appealed. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.