 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Seitz v. Seitz3/22/2005
ce of $38,394.32, and a bank statement reflecting that the settlement proceeds were deposited, and then money was wired from the account to pay off the mortgage.
The parties disagreed about the value of Christine's jewelry as well as the dates and circumstances behind acquisition of the jewelry. James submitted an exhibit listing the jewelry he alleged Christine had acquired during their marriage. James attached copies of appraisals that had been done on the jewelry to support his valuation of $25,080. Christine testified that she had accumulated most of her jewelry before their marriage and that the majority of the pieces were gifts from her parents or from James. In addition, she claimed that the appraisals overstated the true value of some of the pieces.
The district court filed the decree of dissolution on June 3, 2003. The decree awarded the marital home to James, subject to any encumbrances. Christine was awarded a lien against the real property in the amount of $33,000 "for down-payment," plus $60,000 (one-half of the remainder of the equity). Christine was awarded the 1995 Mitsubishi car, and James was awarded the 1999 Ford truck. With regard to household goods and personal property, the court awarded Christine the household goods and jewelry in her possession, as well as 12 specific items which were in James' possession, some of which she had brought into the marriage. James was awarded the household goods he had brought into the marriage, his jewelry, and 15 specific items. The court ordered all such remaining items to be "divided by the parties, each taking an alternate turn, with [Christine] choosing first." No alimony was awarded. Each party was awarded his or her respective checking and savings accounts, as well as his or her own IRA and retirement accounts. Christine was awarded two cemetery plots and a $10,000 life insurance policy. James was awarded the "Level 3 Stock" and a $15,000 life insurance policy. Finally, each party was instructed to pay any debt personally incurred since the filing of the action and his or her own attorney fees.
Following entry of the decree, James filed a motion for new trial, alleging that the court erred in awarding Christine the $33,000 lien on the marital home for the downpayment she allegedly made with non-marital funds. The motion for new trial was overruled on July 7, 2003, and James subsequently filed this timely appeal.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
James assigns, restated, that the district court erred in its division of the marital estate by (1) giving Christine credit for proceeds realized from the sale of her premarital townhouse, allegedly used as the downpayment on the marital home; (2) failing to give James credit for personal injury settlement proceeds he used to pay off the mortgage on the marital home and purchase a truck; and (3) failing to take into consideration the value of Christine's jewelry and adjust the division of the marital estate accordingly.
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 by the trial judge; this standard of review applies to the trial court's determinations regarding division of property, alimony, and attorney fees. Gangwish v. Gangwish, 267 Neb. 901, 678 N.W.2d 503 (2004); Longo v. Longo, 266 Neb. 171, 663 N.W.2d 604 (2003).
A judicial abuse of discretion exists when a judge, within the effective limits of authorized judicial power, elects to act or refrain from action, but the selected option results in a decision which is untenable and unfairly deprives a litigant of a substantial right or a just re
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Nebraska Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|