 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Springer v. Springer11/8/2005
termining the appropriateness of the division of property is fairness and reasonableness as determined by the facts of each case. Hosack v. Hosack, supra; Tyma v. Tyma, supra.
The evidence established that the monthly benefit payments that Gregory would have received if the parties had not elected the joint and survivor benefits would have been $1,759. If the marital portion of the pension fund had been divided equally, Mary's share of that amount would have been $622.98 (monthly benefits of $1,759 ÷ 17/24 marital portion of fund = $1,245.96 ÷ 2 = $622.98). However, the parties elected joint and survivor benefits which had the effect of reducing Gregory's monthly benefit payments to $1,353 and deferred nearly 25 percent of the total benefits in order to protect a source of income to the surviving spouse. Upon Gregory's death, Mary will receive $676.50, which is half of Gregory's monthly benefit.
Based upon our de novo review of the record, we find that the district court's order--which took into account that the parties elected joint and survivor benefits reducing Gregory's monthly income and providing Mary income upon Gregory's death--was not an abuse of discretion. The court's division of Gregory's pension is fair and reasonable based upon the facts of this case.
Furthermore, the record does not reflect that Mary is entitled to alimony. In dividing property and considering alimony upon a dissolution of marriage, a court should consider four 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. Hosack v. Hosack, supra; Claborn v. Claborn, 267 Neb. 201, 673 N.W.2d 533 (2004). Disparity in income or potential income may partially justify an award of alimony. Hosack v. Hosack, supra; Claborn v. Claborn, supra.
During the marriage, both parties were employed, and Mary has been employed full time at Blue Cross Blue Shield for nearly 6 years. Mary testified that her total monthly net income, including the children's disability payments, is between $2,600 and $2,700. Gregory's total monthly net income is $2,761.21. Based upon the contributions of the parties to the marriage, Gregory's fixed income, and Mary's employment and earning capacity, the district court's failure to award alimony was not an abuse of discretion.
CONCLUSION
Having found that Mary's assignments of error are without merit, we affirm the decision of the district court.
Affirmed.
|