 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Seitz v. Seitz3/22/2005
R>
Jewelry
James' final argument is that the district court erred in its valuation of Christine's jewelry. At trial, James offered an exhibit entitled "Jewelry Chris[tine] has accumulated during our marriage," which indicated that Christine had acquired $25,080 worth of jewelry during the course of their marriage. The exhibit separated the jewelry into three categories: "Sterling Silver Jewelry," "14K Gold Jewelry," and "14K Gold with Diamonds." James testified that he knew that Christine had acquired all of the jewelry during their marriage because he had personally participated in the transactions. No receipts for the purchases of the jewelry were introduced. James arrived at his valuation of the jewelry by using insurance appraisals, some of which he offered into evidence.
Christine acknowledged that the list created by James was essentially a list of all the jewelry she owns. She noted, however, that there was some duplication in the list. Christine testified that she had accumulated most of the jewelry prior to her marriage to James. James' counsel, on cross-examination, pointed out that Christine had not listed her jewelry among her non-marital assets in response to interrogatories. Christine explained that she had misunderstood the relevant question and thought it referred to household goods and furniture, not clothing and jewelry. Christine testified that of those items of jewelry which were acquired during the marriage, almost all of them were gifts from James or from her parents. Christine offered no support for this contention other than her willingness to call her parents to testify. Christine testified that she was willing to return any gifts James had purchased for her, if that was what James wanted.
The parties' testimony regarding their wedding rings was also in conflict. James offered appraisals describing at least three different wedding rings totaling $15,750, and he testified that he purchased the original wedding band and diamond for Christine's ring for approximately $1,450. Christine, however, testified that she purchased James' wedding ring, as well as her own wedding set, and that James purchased only the original diamond used in her set, for approximately $1,000. In addition, Christine testified that the three appraisals James offered were actually appraisals of the same wedding set. She stated that they had had the original set refitted with a different diamond and that they also had had two bands soldered together. On cross-examination, James conceded that there were not three wedding rings and that there were some mistakes on the list.
In its decree, the district court chose not to value Christine's jewelry. Each of the parties was awarded his or her own jewelry. Pursuant to our standard of review, we review the dissolution decree independently and reach our own conclusions, in order to determine whether there has been an abuse of discretion by the trial judge. See Gangwish v. Gangwish, 267 Neb. 901, 678 N.W.2d 503 (2004). When evidence is in conflict, however, an appellate court considers, and may give weight to, the fact that the trial judge heard and observed the witnesses and accepted one version of the facts rather than another. Mathews v. Mathews, 267 Neb. 604, 676 N.W.2d 42 (2004); Schuman v. Schuman, 265 Neb. 459, 658 N.W.2d 30 (2003). We choose to do so here. In this case, the evidence regarding Christine's jewelry is clearly in conflict, and therefore, giving weight to the fact that the trial judge heard and observed the witnesses, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its decision not to value Christine's jewelry and, instead, to award each party his or her own jewelry.
CONCLUS
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.
|
|