 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Camp v. Camp12/16/2003
(not designated for permanent publication)
I. INTRODUCTION
In May 1975, Laurie Smith Camp and Jon A. Camp finished their first year at the University of Nebraska College of Law, and they married. Both Jon and Laurie graduated from law school in 1977. Since that time, they have had two children, have both worked full time, and have had successful careers by any measure. At the time of the trial of this divorce in April 2001, Laurie was under consideration for appointment as a U.S. district judge, and we take note of the fact that she has been so appointed and is serving in that capacity. Jon serves as a city councilman for the city of Lincoln and is actively engaged in business pursuits.
After graduating from law school, Jon worked for a number of years in the pension and insurance business, which work produced substantial income. Laurie worked in several positions as a lawyer, but principally for the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services and the Nebraska Attorney General's office. The Camps' respective careers generated sufficient income, along with other personal assets, to enable them to undertake realizing their vision of the development of the historic Haymarket area located adjacent to downtown Lincoln. That venture has been very successful and lucrative. As a result, this divorce involves the division of substantial assets.
There were no disputed issues of child custody, support, or visitation; nor was alimony requested or awarded. District Judge Robert R. Steinke entered a decree of dissolution on April 10, 2002. Jon has timely appealed. The trial testimony is extensive, and the exhibits numerous and complicated. Thus, we limit further recitation of facts to only those needed to discuss and decide the assignments of error asserted by Jon.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
In actions for dissolution of marriage, an appellate court reviews the case de novo on the record to determine whether there has been an abuse of discretion, and such standard of review applies to the trial court's division of property. Parde v. Parde, 258 Neb. 101, 602 N.W.2d 657 (1999).
III. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
Jon has asserted eight assignments of error with corresponding arguments, all of which involve the division of property. We structure our opinion around the assignments of error after setting forth some applicable rules of law.
IV. ANALYSIS
1. General Principles for Property Division
The purpose of property division is to distribute the marital estate equitably between the parties. Neb. Rev. Stat. ยง 42-365 (Reissue 1998). The ultimate test for determining the appropriateness of the division of property is reasonableness as determined by the facts of each case. Hajenga v. Hajenga, 257 Neb. 841, 601 N.W.2d 528 (1999). The division of property is not subject to a precise mathematical formula, but the general rule is to award a spouse one-third to one-half of the marital estate. Thiltges v. Thiltges, 247 Neb. 371, 527 N.W.2d 853 (1995).
In the present case, the trial judge divided what he determined to be the marital estate equally and no complaint is made of that proportional division. In the division of property, the court should consider four fundamental factors: (1) the circumstances of the parties, (2) the duration of the marriage, (3) the history of contributions to the marriage, and (4) the ability of the supported party to engage in gainful employment without interfering with the interests of any minor children in the custody of each party: the polestar being fairness and reasonableness as determined by the facts of each case. See Hajenga v. Hajenga, supra.
<
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Nebraska Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|