Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365

Section 42-365 directs courts to divide marital assets, real or personal, as is just and equitable.

Koester v. Koester · filed 1978-11-27

Nevertheless, under the laws of either state the court is directed to equitably divide marital assets, whether real or personal, as is just and equitable.

Section 42-365 calls for an equitable, reasonable division of marital assets in a dissolution case.

Black v. Black · filed 1985-12-27

Generally, the division of property in a dissolution case is based on equitable principles, and its purpose is to divide the marital assets equitably. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (Reissue 1984). Ultimately, the test is one of reasonableness.

Section 42-365 calls for an equitable division of marital property based on the parties’ circumstances and contributions.

Sullivan v. Sullivan · filed 1986-06-20

When we consider the factors found in § 42-365, and exclude from Sullivans’ marital property Barbara’s interest in the real estate owned jointly with her brother, we find that the district court’s division of marital property is an abuse of discretion and, therefore, must be modified to achieve an equitable division of marital property.

Section 42-365 requires a reasonable division of marital property based on the circumstances of the case and the factors it sets forth.

Kimbrough v. Kimbrough · filed 1988-04-29

Rather, an appropriate division of marital property must turn on reasonableness and the circumstances of each particular case in light of the factors set forth in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (Reissue 1984).

Section 42-365 does not give the spouse who paid for property acquired during marriage exclusive rights to it when the other spouse contributed domestic support.

Chrisp v. Chrisp · filed 1980-12-01

Neb.Rev.Stat. § 42-365 (Reissue 1978), the statute then in effect, provided that the spouse providing the financial consideration for property acquired during the marriage is not entitled to that property to the exclusion of the spouse providing consideration in the form of domestic support.

Section 42-365 requires courts dividing marital property to consider the parties’ circumstances, the length of the marriage, each party’s contributions, career interruptions, and the supported party’s ability to work while caring for minor children.

Kullbom v. Kullbom · filed 1981-06-12

The court, in dividing the property, must take into consideration the circumstances of the parties, the duration of the marriage, the contributions to the marriage by each party, including contributions to the care and education of the children, and interruption of personal careers or educational opportunities, and the ability of the supported party to engage in gainful employment without interfering with the interests of any minor children in the custody of such party. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 42-365 (Reissue 1978).

Section 42-365 requires courts to consider the parties’ circumstances, the length of the marriage, their contributions, career interruptions, and earning ability when dividing property and awarding alimony.

McBride v. McBride · filed 1982-05-07

The court, in dividing the property, must take into consideration the circumstances of the parties, the duration of the marriage, the contributions to the marriage by each party, including contributions to the care and education of the children, and interruption of personal careers or educational opportunities, and the ability of the supported party to engage in gainful employment. ... In the case at hand, it appears that the trial court, after considering the circumstances of the parties, the duration of the marriage, the history of the contributions to the marriage by each party, including contributions to the care and education of the children, and interruption of personal careers or educational opportunities, and the ability of the supported party to engage in gainful employment, felt that Betty was entitled to alimony, and in this we concur.

Section 42-365 treats property division as equitable distribution of marital assets and alimony as support based on the parties’ economic circumstances and the statutory criteria.

Ruhnke v. Ruhnke · filed 1984-09-21

While the criteria for reaching a reasonable division of property and a reasonable award of alimony may overlap, the two serve different purposes and are to be considered separately. The purpose of a property division is to distribute the marital assets equitably between the parties. The purpose of alimony is to provide for the continued maintenance or support of one party by the other when the relative economic circumstances and the other criteria enumerated in this section make it appropriate.

Section 42-365 directs courts to consider the parties’ circumstances, contributions to the marriage, career interruptions, and the supported spouse’s ability to work when deciding reasonable alimony and property division.

Burhoop v. Burhoop · filed 1986-01-24

Under § 42-365 this court, in deciding what is reasonable, should consider the circumstances of the parties, duration of the marriage, a history of the contributions to the marriage by each party, including contributions to the care and education of the children, and interruption of personal careers or educational opportunities, and the ability of the supported party to engage in gainful employment without interfering with the interests of any minor children in the custody of such party.

Section 42-365 requires a reasonable division of property in light of each case’s circumstances, including the marriage’s duration, each spouse’s contributions, interruptions to careers or education, and earning ability.

Busekist v. Busekist · filed 1987-01-16

An appropriate division of property must turn on reasonableness and the circumstances of each case in light of the factors set forth in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (Reissue 1984).

Section 42-365 directs courts dividing a marital estate to consider the marriage’s duration, the parties’ circumstances, and each party’s contributions to the marriage.

Seemann v. Seemann · filed 1987-04-03

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (Reissue 1984) sets out a series of factors to be taken into consideration in the division of the marital estate, including the duration of the marriage, the circumstances of the parties, and the history of contributions to the marriage made by each party. For the following reasons, we find this assignment of error to be without merit.

Section 42-365 makes the treatment of premarital, gifted, or inherited property in property division depend on the facts and equities of each case.

Lord v. Lord · filed 1983-02-25

Statutory guidelines are found in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (Cum. Supp. 1982). How property owned at marriage and acquired by gift or inheritance will be considered in determining division of property or award of alimony must depend upon the facts of the particular case and the equities involved. ... Applying these rules to the facts of this case, we find there was no abuse of discretion by the trial court.

Section 42-365 allows personal injury settlement proceeds to be included in the marital estate when equity requires it.

Maricle v. Maricle · filed 1985-12-27

In determining what assets constitute the marital estate and how the property should be divided, Nebraska, by statute, is an equitable property jurisdiction. § 42-365. ... In the present case equity requires that the proceeds from the settlement of the damage actions be included in the marital estate.

Section 42-365 permits goodwill to be divided as marital property only when it is a marketable business asset with value independent of a particular person’s presence or reputation.

Taylor v. Taylor · filed 1986-05-16

Accordingly, to be properly within the purview of § 42-365 as property divisible and distributable in a dissolution proceeding, we conclude that goodwill must be a business asset with value independent of the presence or reputation of a particular individual, an asset which may be sold, transferred, conveyed, or pledged.

A spouse claiming funds as premarital property bears the burden of proving their source.

Frost v. Frost · filed 1988-01-22

The burden of proof was on the petitioner to show the source of all funds claimed as premarital, and we find the petitioner failed to prove that he was entitled to claim $41,048 from the sale of the Rose Lane property.

Section 42-365 calls for equitable division of marital property, which may require an equal division when the circumstances make that reasonable.

John v. John · filed 1993-07-06

Section 42-365 states that the purpose of a property division is to distribute the marital assets equitably between the parties. ... Given the record before us, we hold that the trial court abused its discretion regarding the disability pension, in our view, a reasonable division of this pension means an equal division.

Section 42-365 treats a workers’ compensation award as marital property only to the extent it replaces income lost during the marriage.

Gibson-Voss v. Voss · filed 1995-12-19

Accordingly, a workers’ compensation award is marital property only to the extent it recompenses for the couple’s loss of income during the marriage.

Section 42-365 requires a reasonable division of marital property based on the circumstances of each case; asset valuations made near trial may be relevant to that division.

Else v. Else · filed 1997-01-14

Under Nebraska jurisprudence, an appropriate division of marital property turns on reasonableness as determined by the circumstances of each particular case. ... We conclude the district court erred in failing to receive exhibits 35, 37, and 40 without limitation. These exhibits included valuations of marital assets as appraised the week prior to trial. Such valuations were clearly relevant to the court’s reasonable and equitable division of property upon dissolution.

Section 42-365 permits the sale of marital assets in a dissolution when the resulting division is reasonable in light of the parties’ circumstances and the nature of their property.

Kellner v. Kellner · filed 1999-04-20

After studying the above cases from both Nebraska and other states, we conclude a court in a dissolution action may provide for the sale of all or part of the parties’ assets in lieu of dividing them, if to do so is reasonable in the light of the facts, the circumstances of the parties, and the nature of their property. Such action, of course, must be within the statutory dictate that the division of the assets be reasonable, having regard for the circumstances of the parties as provided in § 42-365, and that it satisfy the ultimate test of fairness and reasonableness articulated by case law.

Section 42-365 excludes the value of a covenant not to compete from marital property to the extent that its value depends solely on an individual's presence or reputation.

Kricsfeld v. Kricsfeld · filed 1999-01-05

To the extent that the value of a covenant not to compete is solely dependent on the presence or reputation of an individual, it is not a marital asset.

Section 42-365 permits a court dividing marital property to consider each spouse’s contributions, including prolonged, unexplained unemployment that limited one spouse’s contribution to the marital estate.

Mathew v. Palmer · filed 1999-02-09

We are admonished in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (Reissue 1998) that “[w]hile the criteria for reaching a reasonable division of property and a reasonable award of alimony may overlap, the two serve different purposes and are to be considered separately.” ... We realize that an alteration in the normal distribution of the marital estate to allow for periods of ordinary unemployment is probably not justified, but at some point, prolonged, unexplained unemployment of a spouse must be considered in evaluating the contributions of that unemployed spouse to the marital estate.

Section 42-365 excludes compensation for a spouse’s personal injuries and postdivorce earning capacity from the marital estate, but includes compensation for losses to the marital estate.

Parde v. Parde · filed 1999-11-12

We, therefore, hold that compensation for an injury that a spouse has or will receive for pain, suffering, disfigurement, disability, or loss of postdivorce earning capacity should not equitably be included in the marital estate.

Section 42-365 generally treats income tax liability incurred during marriage as marital debt, but does not require a spouse who timely paid separate taxes to share the other spouse’s late-filing penalties.

Meints v. Meints · filed 2000-03-17

Equitable property division under § 42-365 is a three-step process. ... Income tax liability incurred during the marriage is one of the accepted costs of producing marital income, and thus, we hold that income tax liability should generally be treated as a marital debt. ... Based on the same equitable principle, however, we conclude that an innocent spouse who has filed separate tax returns, and paid his or her taxes in a timely fashion, should not be forced to share in any statutory penalties for the late filings of a dilatory spouse.

Section 42-365 requires courts to classify property, value marital assets and liabilities, and divide the net marital estate equitably.

Gibilisco v. Gibilisco · filed 2002-01-18

Equitable property division under § 42-365 is a three-step process. The first step is to classify the parties’ property as marital or nonmarital. The second step is to value the marital assets and marital liabilities of the parties. The third step is to calculate and divide the net marital estate between the parties in accordance with the principles contained in § 42-365.

Section 42-365 governs the calculation and division of the net marital estate in an equitable property division.

Hughes v. Hughes · filed 2005-11-22

The third step is to calculate and divide the net marital estate between the parties in accordance with the principles contained in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (Reissue 2004). ... The judgment to be paid by Gary to Mary is $78,324, and the district court’s order is so modified.

Section 42-365 requires an equitable division of marital property based on fairness and reasonableness in the circumstances of each case.

Charron v. Charron · filed 2008-06-03

Under Neb.Rev.Stat. § 42-365 (Reissue 2004), the purpose of property division is to equitably distribute the marital assets between the parties, and the polestar for such distribution is fairness and reasonableness as determined by the facts of each case. ... Both parties have appropriate uses for the ground, and we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion or that its treatment of this parcel was unreasonable or unfair.

Section 42-365 requires an equitable division of marital property; a spouse’s retirement account accumulated during the marriage belongs in the marital estate.

Klimek v. Klimek · filed 2009-10-27

The purpose of a property division is to distribute the marital assets equitably between the parties. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 42-365 (Reissue 2008); Malin v. Loynachan, 15 Neb.App. 706, 736 N.W.2d 390 (2007). ... We have found that the trial court erred in failing to include Stacey's retirement account in the marital estate, and we have modified the decree to provide for a division thereof by a QDRO.

Under § 42-365, equitable property division requires the court to classify property as marital or nonmarital, value the marital assets and liabilities, and divide the net marital estate.

Eyman v. Eyman · filed 2014-02-04

Pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (Reissue 2008), the equitable division of property is a three-step process. The first step is to classify the parties’ property as marital or nonmarital. The second step is to value the marital assets and liabilities of the parties. The third step is to calculate and divide the net marital estate between the parties in accordance with the principles in § 42-365.

Section 42-365 calls for courts to classify property as marital or nonmarital, value the marital assets and liabilities, and divide the net marital estate equitably.

Koch v. Koch · filed 2014-11-18

Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (Reissue 2008), the equitable division of property is a three-step process. The first step is to classify the parties’ property as marital or nonmarital. The second step is to value the marital assets and marital liabilities of the parties. The third step is to calculate and divide the net marital estate between the parties in accordance with the principles contained in § 42-365.

Section 42-365 calls for equitable division of marital property, considering the parties’ circumstances, length of marriage, and contributions to the marriage.

Wolfe v. Wolfe · filed 2015-03-03

The purpose of a property division is to distribute the marital assets equitably between the parties. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (Reissue 2008). ... We agree that he should receive credit for these debts that he was ordered to pay and the recapitulation by the court did not credit him for these debts.

Section 42-365 permits tax debt to be treated as nonmarital debt when credible evidence shows the income was spent on nonmarital pursuits; penalties and interest caused by one spouse’s late filing may also be assigned to that spouse.

Carter v. Carter · filed 2001-06-01

We hold under the facts of this case that equity demands the tax principal be treated as nonmarital debt because credible evidence established that it was spent by Michael on nonmarital pursuits. Michael shall be solely liable for the original tax principal of approximately $21,000 from his severance package. We also determine that Michael is also solely liable for all assessed penalties and accrued interest due to Michael’s dilatory filing, as it is also nonmarital debt.

Section 42-365 calls for equitable division of marital property, including debts incurred during marriage for the parties’ joint benefit.

Wilson v. Wilson · filed 2014-01-21

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (Reissue 2008) governs the trial court’s authority to divide the marital estate and award alimony. Section 42-365 dictates that the purpose of property division “is to distribute the marital assets equitably between the parties.” Equitable property division is a three-step process. First, the trial court classifies properties and liabilities as marital or nonmarital. ... Therefore, we find that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to classify the $150,000 loan as a marital debt and in failing to include it in the marital estate.

Section 42-365 includes a debt in the marital estate only if it was incurred during the marriage for the parties’ joint benefit.

Mathews v. Mathews · filed 2004-03-19

Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (Reissue 1998), the equitable division of property is a three-step process. ... Marital debt includes only those obligations incurred during the marriage for the joint benefit of the parties.

Section 42-365 permits assets acquired during marriage by a spouse’s corporate alter ego to be included in the marital estate and equitably divided.

Medlock v. Medlock · filed 2002-04-12

As previously stated, equitable property division under § 42-365 is a three-step process. The first step is to classify the parties’ property as marital or nonmarital. ... We have concluded that assets which came into Union Oaks during the time of the parties’ marriage were in fact part of the marital estate and subject to division upon dissolution.

Section 42-365 permits a court to consider a professional degree earned by one spouse with the other's aid when dividing property and awarding alimony.

Schaefer v. Schaefer · filed 2002-04-25

We note, however, that § 42-365 requires a dissolution court to divide property and award alimony in a reasonable manner, having regard for, inter alia, the circumstances of the parties and the history of contributions to the marriage. Pursuant to this statutory language, the attainment by one spouse of a professional degree with aid from the other is one factor a district court may consider in the division of assets and award of alimony in a marital dissolution proceeding.

Section 42-365 calls for equitable division of marital assets; one spouse’s voluntary early retirement does not itself justify reducing the other spouse’s share of pension benefits.

Webster v. Webster · filed 2006-06-16

With property division, the purpose is “to distribute the marital assets equitably between the parties.” § 42-365. ... By this standard, it would be incongruous to reduce one party’s equitable share in the other’s pension simply because one has elected to retire early, while the other continues to work.

Under § 42-365, the portion of severance pay earned during marriage is marital property, and the spouse seeking to exclude a portion must prove it is nonmarital.

Malin v. Loynachan · filed 2007-07-10

Under § 42-365, the equitable division of property is a three-step process. ... At trial, Brian met his burden to show that a portion of his severance package was earned prior to the marriage, but the remainder should be added back to the balance of the Charles Schwab account.

Section 42-365 permits an equitable property division that uses a lump-sum payment from a retirement account instead of a percentage of the account.

Ging v. Ging · filed 2009-11-24

The purpose of a property division is to distribute the marital assets equitably between the parties. § 42-365. ... We further find no abuse of discretion in dividing the marital estate by ordering a lump-sum cash payment to Natalie from Gregory's retirement account as opposed to a payment on a percentage basis.

Section 42-365 requires an equitable division of marital property; value added to a retirement account by one spouse’s loan payments after separation is not attributable to the parties’ joint efforts.

Cushman v. Cushman · filed 2014-07-29

We conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by not taking into consideration the postseparation loan payments made by Brent on his 401K account, since the resulting restoration ... of value in the 401K was not due to joint efforts of the parties, but by Brent’s efforts alone. As set forth in Tyma, supra, the date upon which the marital estate is valued should be rationally related to the property composing the marital estate, and the marital estate includes property accumulated and acquired during the marriage through the joint efforts of the parties.

Section 42-365 requires courts to set aside nonmarital property before dividing the marital estate.

Despain v. Despain · filed 2015-02-06

Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (Reissue 2008), the equitable division of property is a three-step process. The first step is to classify the parties’ property as marital or nonmarital, setting aside the nonmarital property to the party who brought that property to the marriage.

Section 42-365 calls for courts to classify property as marital or nonmarital, value marital assets and liabilities, and divide the net marital estate equitably.

Langerstrom v. Neal · filed 2015-03-17

Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (Reissue 2008), the equitable division of property is a three-step process. The first step is to classify the parties’ property as marital or nonmarital. The second step is to value the marital assets and marital liabilities of the parties. The third step is to calculate and divide the net marital estate between the parties in accordance with the principles contained in § 42-365. ... We find the district court erred in labeling the bond account as nonmarital property, and we remand the distribution of the marital estate to the district court for a recalculation, including the value of the bond account as a marital asset.

Section 42-365 requires an equitable division of marital assets and permits valuation decisions based on the equities of the case.

Mitchell v. Mansfield · filed 2016-11-29

This case is an action for dissolution of marriage, in which the purpose of a property division is to distribute the marital assets equitably between the parties. See § 42-365. In its comments, the district court recited certain portions of the procedural history of both divorce cases and explained its choice of valuation date and value for MEI, according to the equities of this particular case. As set forth above, the court did not abuse its discretion in valuing MEI.

Section 42-365 permits a fair and reasonable division of the marital estate, including an equalization payment.

Lowitz v. Colson · filed 2016-12-20

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 authorizes a trial court to equitably distribute the marital estate according to what is fair and reasonable under the circumstances. ... The property division selected by the court and corresponding equalization payment was fair and reasonable under the circumstances.

Section 42-365 requires courts to classify the parties’ property, value marital assets and liabilities, and divide the net marital estate equitably.

Tucker-Thomas v. Thomas · filed 2017-02-28

Under § 42-365, the equitable division of property is a three-step process. The first step is to classify the parties’ property as marital or nonmarital. The second step is to value the marital assets and liabilities of the parties. The third step is to calculate and divide the net marital estate between the parties in accordance with the principles contained in § 42-365.

Section 42-365 calls for courts to classify property as marital or nonmarital, value the marital assets and liabilities, and divide the net marital estate equitably.

Bergmeier v. Bergmeier · filed 2017-04-21

We have stated that under § 42-365, the equitable division of property is a three-step proc­ess. The first step is to classify the parties’ property as marital or nonmarital, setting aside the nonmarital property to the party who brought that property to the marriage. The second step is to value the marital assets and marital liabilities of the parties. The third step is to calculate and divide the net marital estate between the parties in accordance with the principles contained in § 42-365.

Section 42-365 requires a court to value and divide all assets and debts in the marital estate.

Osantowski v. Osantowski · filed 2017-12-08

As mentioned above, under § 42-365, a court has a duty to value and divide all of the assets and debts constituting the marital estate.

Section 42-365 requires courts to classify property as marital or nonmarital, value the marital assets and liabilities, and divide the net marital estate equitably.

Fetherkile v. Fetherkile · filed 2018-02-23

Under § 42-365, the equitable division of property is a three-step process. The first step is to classify the parties’ property as marital or nonmarital. The second step is to value the marital assets and marital liabilities of the parties. The third step is to calculate and divide the net marital estate between the parties in accordance with the principles contained in § 42-365.

Section 42-365 calls for an equitable division of marital assets and permits awarding the marital home to one spouse when the circumstances support it.

Nasalik v. Nasalik · filed 2018-02-27

Section 42-365 states that the purpose of a property division is to distribute the marital assets equitably between the parties. ... Under the circumstances, we cannot find it was an abuse of discretion to award the marital home to Shirley.

Section 42-365 permits an equal division of marital home equity when that division is fair and reasonable under the parties’ circumstances.

Calleja v. Calleja · filed 2018-04-24

“The purpose of a property division is to distribute the marital assets equitably between the parties.” Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (Reissue 2016). ... Based on the evidence, it was fair and reasonable for the court to award Anthony one-half of the equity in the marital house.

Section 42-365 permits a property equalization payment through a QDRO when immediate payment would be unreasonable under the circumstances.

Consbruck v. Consbruck · filed 2016-03-29

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 authorizes a trial court to equitably distribute the marital estate according to what is fair and reasonable under the circumstances. ... We conclude, on this record, that the district court abused its discretion in ordering that an equalization payment of $112,137 be made “forthwith.” We conclude that under the circumstances of this case, awarding Kayla this sum from Todd’s retirement account using a QDRO was a more appropriate manner to equalize the division of the marital estate.

Section 42-365 requires equitable division of real estate taxes incurred during marriage on farmland used to produce marital income, even when the land is premarital property.

Clason v. Clason · filed 2016-10-25

We likewise find that real estate taxes assessed on farmland used for income production during the marriage are analogous to income taxes. Such taxes are a necessary expense for the ownership and use of that land in order to produce marital income, and that income benefits both spouses.

Under § 42-365, a spouse seeking credit for premarital debt paid with marital funds must prove the amount and account for any portion repaid through the other spouse’s separate property or assigned debt.

Keruzis-Thorson v. Thorson · filed 2018-03-20

Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (Reissue 2016), the equitable division of marital property is a three-step process. ... Given this lack of documentation, we find that the district court abused its discretion in finding that Jason met his burden of proving that Audrey brought $12,000 in premarital debt into the marriage and that the debt was retired with marital funds.

Section 42-365 calls for courts to classify property, value marital assets and liabilities, and divide the net marital estate fairly and reasonably.

Meelhuysen v. Meelhuysen · filed 2018-09-11

Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (Reissue 2016), the equitable division of property is a three-step process. ... The third step is to calculate and divide the net marital estate between the parties in accordance with the principles contained in § 42-365.

Section 42-365 calls for an equitable division of marital property.

Korf v. Korf · filed 2019-02-19

Under Nebraska’s divorce statutes, “[t]he purpose of a property division is to distribute the marital assets equitably between the parties.” Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (Reissue 2016).

Section 42-365 governs equitable division of property through a three-step process.

Dooling v. Dooling · filed 2019-07-05

Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (Reissue 2016), the equitable division of property is a three-step process.

Under § 42-365, a court cannot charge a spouse with dissipating marital assets for gambling without proof that the claimed amount was spent while the marriage was undergoing an irretrievable breakdown.

Anderson v. Anderson · filed 2019-09-03

While it may be true that Donald gambled throughout the parties’ marriage, leading, in part, to its eventual demise, our record does not reflect that Donald dissipated $20,000 of marital property when the marriage was undergoing an irretrievable breakdown. As such, we find that the district court erred in classifying the $20,000 IRA loan as an asset belonging to Donald.

Section 42-365 requires a reasonable division of marital property in light of the parties’ circumstances, including when deciding whether to order a business sold.

Killinger v. Killinger · filed 2019-12-17

Such action, of course, must be within the statutory dictate that the division of the assets be reasonable, having regard for the circumstances of the parties as provided in § 42-365, and that it satisfy the ultimate test of fairness and reasonableness articulated by case law. ... Under the facts and circumstances in this case, we cannot say that it was unreasonable to decline to order the sale of the business.

Section 42-365 calls for an equitable division of the net marital estate; a court may divide the marital appreciation of a premarital home equally when the evidence supports that result.

Paulson v. Hamelin-Paulson · filed 2020-04-14

The third step is to calculate and divide the net marital estate between the parties in accordance with the principles contained in § 42-365. ... Given the foregoing evidence, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dividing the appreciation of Jeremy’s nonmarital residence equally between the parties.

Section 42-365 calls for an equitable division of marital assets between spouses.

Doerr v. Doerr · filed 2020-07-02

In a divorce action, the purpose of a property division is to distribute the marital assets equitably between the parties.

Section 42-365 calls for courts to classify property, value marital assets and liabilities, and divide the net marital estate fairly and reasonably.

Finch v. Finch · filed 2021-04-06

Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (Reissue 2016), the equitable division of property is a three-step process. ... The first step is to classify the parties’ property as marital or nonmarital, setting aside the nonmarital property to the party who brought that property to the marriage. ... The second step is to value the marital assets and marital liabilities of the parties. ... The third step is to calculate and divide the net marital estate between the parties in accordance with the principles contained in § 42-365. ... Section 42-365 authorizes a trial court to equitably distribute the marital estate according to what is fair and reasonable under the circumstances.

Section 42-365 calls for courts to classify property, value marital assets and liabilities, and divide the net marital estate equitably.

Bhatia v. Thomas-Bhatia · filed 2021-05-11

Equitable property division under § 42-365 is a three-step process. ... That timeframe is consistent with testimony in the record identifying when Sameer and Kathryn separated, which date we find to be rationally related to valuing the property comprising the marital estate and of which we find no abuse of discretion by the district court.

A spouse’s premarital debt reduces that spouse’s property award when evidence shows the amount repaid during the marriage with marital funds.

Abbott v. Abbott · filed 2021-01-26

Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (Reissue 2016), the equitable division of property is a three-step process. ... When one party’s nonmarital debt is repaid with marital funds, the value of the debt repayments ought to reduce that party’s property award upon dissolution. ... Because there was no evidence presented to the district court regarding the amount of Billie’s Navient premarital debt that was paid off during the marriage, and whether it was paid with marital funds, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it did not factor the premarital debt into a division of the marital estate.

Section 42-365 requires a fair and reasonable division of the marital estate; a court abuses its discretion by ordering a cash equalization payment the paying spouse cannot afford.

Verzal v. Verzal · filed 2021-05-25

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (Reissue 2016) authorizes a trial court to equitably distribute the marital estate according to what is fair and reasonable under the circumstances. ... We therefore conclude, on this record, that the district court abused its discretion in ordering that an equalization payment of $57,319.50 be paid in cash within 6 months. We conclude that under the circumstances of this case, awarding Michelle this sum from Joshua’s 401K account using a QDRO was a more appropriate manner to equalize the division of the marital estate.

Section 42-365 authorizes courts to divide the marital estate equitably according to what is fair and reasonable under the circumstances.

Parde v. Parde · filed 2023-03-17

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (Reissue 2016) authorizes a trial court to equitably distribute the marital estate according to what is fair and reasonable under the circumstances.

Section 42-365 permits a court dividing marital property to value dissipated assets by the loss their dissipation caused the marital estate.

Rios v. Valdivia · filed 2023-05-09

However, the value of Juan’s dissipation of assets is more accurately described as the loss incurred by the marital estate as a result of the dissipation.

Section 42-365 authorizes courts to divide the marital estate according to what is fair and reasonable under the circumstances.

Macy v. Macy · filed 2023-09-26

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (Reissue 2016) authorizes a trial court to equitably distribute the marital estate according to what is fair and reasonable under the circumstances.

Section 42-365 requires courts to classify property, value marital assets and liabilities, and divide the net marital estate equitably.

Knapp v. Knapp · filed 2024-03-05

Under § 42-365, the equitable division of property is a three-step process.

Section 42-365 authorizes a court to divide the marital estate equitably according to what is fair and reasonable under the circumstances.

Seemann v. Seemann · filed 2024-05-24

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (Reissue 2016) authorizes a trial court to equitably distribute the marital estate according to what is fair and reasonable under the circumstances. ... We therefore reverse the order of property division and remand the cause to the district court for an equitable division of the marital estate as it is constituted after the corrections that we set forth above.

Section 42-365 requires an equitable division of marital property, including the value of a jointly owned business built during the marriage.

Penate v. Penate · filed 2024-06-11

Under § 42-365, the purpose of a property division is to distribute the marital assets equitably between the parties. ... Although Francisco will maintain the business following the dissolution, we find it inequitable to award Manuella less than 50 percent of the business’ value that was built during the parties’ marriage.

Under § 42-365, an investment made with marital funds is marital property, but its assigned value must be supported by evidence.

Sandin v. Sandin · filed 2024-07-09

Under § 42-365, the equitable division of property is a three-step process. ... The second step is to value the marital assets and marital liabilities of the parties. ... Accordingly, the investment was a marital asset since it was made with marital funds, regardless of whether Julie agreed with it or not. ... In the present case, neither party presented any evidence to show the current value of the investment. Accordingly, we find the trial court’s valuation of $100,000 to be an abuse of discretion.

Section 42-365 permits a court to award the marital home to one spouse and account for the other spouse’s equity in the overall property division and equalization payment.

Manetti v. Smith · filed 2025-03-11

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (Reissue 2016) authorizes a trial court to equitably distribute the marital estate according to what is fair and reasonable under the circumstances. ... We cannot say that the district court abused its discretion regarding the value of the residence, its decision to award it to Sarah, or its determination that any claim by Jacob to equity in the residence was taken into consideration in the final property division and equalization payment.

Section 42-365 allows a court to calculate and divide the marital estate in narrative form, but an equalization payment must reflect that calculation.

Schroeder v. Schroeder · filed 2025-04-15

We disagree that the district court failed to calculate and divide the net marital assets; it did so in narrative form in its decree. However, Jacob is correct that the equalization payment was tendered as a conclusion without any showing of how the district court arrived at a payment of $421,155. ... We have therefore recalculated the valuation and division of the marital estate using the district court’s narrative and the joint property statement upon which it relied. This results in an equalization payment of $216,248.51.

Section 42-365 authorizes a trial court to divide the marital estate equitably according to what is fair and reasonable under the circumstances.

Strauss v. Strauss · filed 2025-04-29

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (Reissue 2016) authorizes a trial court to equitably distribute the marital estate according to what is fair and reasonable under the circumstances.

Section 42-365 calls for an equitable division of marital property that takes account of the parties’ circumstances, the length of the marriage, and their contributions.

Holdcroft v. Holdcroft · filed 2025-06-10

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (Reissue 2016) provides for the “division of property as may be reasonable, having regard for the circumstances of the parties, duration of the marriage, [and] a history of the contributions to the marriage by each party,” and further provides that “[t]he purpose of a property division is to distribute the marital assets equitably between the parties.” ... For these reasons, the court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Robin the marital home.

Section 42-365 authorizes a court to divide the marital estate fairly and reasonably under the circumstances.

Haney v. Haney · filed 2025-07-29

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (Reissue 2016) authorizes a trial court to equitably distribute the marital estate according to what is fair and reasonable under the circumstances.

Section 42-365 requires courts to classify property, value marital assets and liabilities, and divide the net marital estate equitably.

Scott v. Scott · filed 2025-09-12

Under § 42-365, the equitable division of property is a three-step process: (1) classify the parties’ property as either marital or nonmarital, setting aside the nonmarital property or nonmarital portion of the property to the party who brought the property to the marriage; (2) value the marital assets and marital liabilities of the parties; (3) calculate and divide the net marital estate equitably between the parties.

Section 42-365 permits a property equalization payment even when the paying spouse receives no liquid assets from the marital estate.

Karas v. Karas · filed 2023-08-04

There is nothing in the language of § 42-365 that prevents the court from ordering an equalization payment without awarding liquid assets from the marital estate.

Section 42-365 permits a dissolution court to consider the parties’ economic circumstances when setting a feasible deadline for an equalization payment.

Pebley v. Pebley · filed 2026-01-06

Under § 42-365, the court may take the economic circumstances of the parties into account and is not limited to the assets divided as part of the marital estate. ... We determine the district court abused its discretion in ordering the entire equalization payment be made within 60 days.

Section 42-365 treats an alimony-in-gross award as a final judgment when the decree expressly precludes modification.

Van Pelt v. Van Pelt · filed 1980-06-03

Under a prior statute, this court held that an unqualified allowance of alimony in gross, whether payable immediately in full or periodically in installments, and whether intended solely as a property settlement or as an allowance for support, or both, is such a definite and final adjustment of mutual rights and obligations between husband and wife as to be capable of a present vesting and to constitute an absolute judgment. ... Under the terms of Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 42-365 and 42-366 (Reissue 1978), we believe that rule must be extended to those cases in which the decree expressly precludes modification.

Section 42-365 permits nonterminable alimony, which creates an allowance of alimony in gross capable of vesting as an absolute judgment.

Torrey v. Torrey · filed 1980-06-17

Since this decree provided that alimony was not terminable, as permitted by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (Reissue 1978), it created an unqualified allowance of alimony in gross. Such an award, whether payable immediately in full or periodically in installments, and whether intended solely as a property settlement or as an allowance for support, or both, is such a definite and final adjustment of mutual rights and obligations between husband and wife as to be capable of a present vesting and to constitute an absolute judgment.

Section 42-365's criteria guide alimony and property division; an alimony award beyond the paying spouse's capacity may be reduced.

Whitney v. Whitney · filed 1983-06-10

We have considered the statutory criteria for allowances of alimony, child support, and division of property, Neb.Rev. Stat. § 42-364 (Reissue 1978) and Neb.Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (Cum.Supp.1982), and prior decisions of this court, relative to appropriate allowances and divisions of property. ... Applying the same to the facts of this case, we find the decree herein should be modified in the following respects: ... (2) The petitioner is awarded alimony of $200 per month, commencing March 1, 1982, and continuing for a period of 63 months (for a total alimony award of $12,600).

Section 42-365 permits reasonable alimony based on the parties’ circumstances, contributions to the marriage, and the supported party’s ability to work while caring for minor children.

Grace v. Grace · filed 1986-01-24

We are simply unable to say, in light of the record presented here and the purpose of alimony as prescribed in § 42-365, that the trial court abused its discretion. We believe the award of alimony must be affirmed at this time.

Section 42-365 allows reasonable alimony based on the parties’ circumstances, the duration of the marriage, and each spouse’s contributions.

Priest v. Priest · filed 1996-11-08

Based upon a review of the facts and circumstances in this case and the criteria set forth in § 42-365, we hold that the trial court’s award of alimony in this case was not “patently unfair,” and therefore, it cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding the wife alimony.

Section 42-365 requires courts setting alimony to consider each party’s income and earning capacity, along with the listed factors and the general equities.

Halouska v. Halouska · filed 1998-10-06

In addition to the specific criteria listed in § 42-365, a court setting alimony is to consider the income and earning capacity of each party, as well as the general equities of each situation.

Section 42-365 provides for alimony when the parties’ relative economic circumstances and other statutory criteria make continued support appropriate.

Brunges v. Brunges · filed 2000-11-03

The purpose of alimony is to provide for the continued maintenance or support of one party by the other when the relative economic circumstances and the other enumerated criteria make it appropriate. See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (Reissue 1998). ... We conclude, under the circumstances set forth herein, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to award alimony to Mary.

Section 42-365 permits a court to deny alimony when the parties’ circumstances, including the prospective payer’s age and limited income, make an award unreasonable.

Olson v. Olson · filed 2005-03-01

Given Dale’s age, his limited income, and the circumstances of the parties, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in not awarding Rose Mary alimony.

Section 42-365 permits alimony when the parties’ circumstances and the statutory criteria make continued support appropriate.

Gerritsen v. Gerritsen · filed 2013-05-28

We conclude that the district court did not err in denying Steven’s request for alimony. None of the statutory criteria for an award of alimony are present in this case. This was a very short marriage, and no children were born of the marriage. Both parties had long careers before they met, and they are both able to continue working as they did prior to the marriage.

Section 42-365 permits alimony when reasonable in light of the parties’ circumstances, including their earning capacity and financial obligations.

Lewis v. Lewis · filed 2017-04-25

In addition to the criteria listed in § 42-365, in considering alimony upon a dissolution of marriage, a trial court is to consider the income and earning capacity of each party, as well as the general equities of each situation. ... Based on the totality of the foregoing factors, we cannot find that the district court abused its discretion in not awarding alimony to Melissa.

Section 42-365 requires courts deciding alimony to consider the parties’ circumstances, income, earning capacity, and general equities.

Araujo v. Araujo · filed 2017-07-18

In addition to the specific criteria listed in § 42-365, a court should consider the income and earning capacity of each party and the general equities. ... After a de novo review of the record and considering the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the denial of alimony was not an abuse of discretion.

Section 42-365 permits alimony when the parties’ relative economic circumstances and the statutory criteria make continued support appropriate.

Poehling v. Poehling · filed 2020-10-27

“The purpose of alimony is to provide for the continued maintenance or support of one party by the other when the relative economic circumstances and the other criteria enumerated in this section make it appropriate.” § 42-365. ... Her present ability to support herself is not in doubt. We therefore find that the district court’s failure to award her alimony does not constitute an abuse of discretion.

Section 42-365 permits reasonable alimony for continued support when the parties’ economic circumstances and the statutory criteria make it appropriate.

Reeves v. Reeves · filed 2023-02-07

Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (Reissue 2016), the purpose of alimony is to provide for the continued maintenance or support of one party by the other when the relative economic ... circumstances and the other criteria enumerated in this section make it appropriate. ... Under the circumstances of this case, we cannot say that the district court’s award of alimony was patently unfair.

Section 42-365 permits alimony that accounts for time spent caring for children and an injury that limits the supported spouse’s earning capacity.

Holtzen v. Holtzen · filed 2025-01-28

Tricia clearly interrupted her career for a period of years to care for the children and her return to full-time employment was impacted by a work-related injury. There is simply no evidence that her earning capacity is such that she can support herself without some assistance for the foreseeable future.

Section 42-365 calls for consideration of the parties’ circumstances, the length of the marriage, their contributions, and the supported party’s ability to work while caring for minor children when awarding alimony.

Peterson v. Peterson · filed 2018-11-13

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. Wiedel v. Wiedel, 300 Neb. 13, 911 N.W.2d 582 (2018). In addition, a court should consider the income and earning capacity of each party and the general equities of the situation. Id. See, also, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (Reissue 2016) (setting forth factors to consider and purpose of alimony award). ... The court considered the appropriate factors, and we find no abuse of discretion either in the amount or duration of the alimony award.

Section 42-365 makes reasonableness the ultimate criterion for whether alimony should be awarded, in what amount, and for how long.

Kosnopfl v. Kosnopfl · filed 1980-06-24

In determining whether alimony should be awarded, in what amount, and over what period of time, the ultimate criterion under the statute as well as under the former decisions of this court is one of reasonableness. The relevant considerations will vary from case to case.

Section 42-365 calls for consideration of the parties’ circumstances, the length of the marriage, their contributions, and the supported party’s ability to work when awarding alimony.

Amen v. Amen · filed 1981-01-16

Each of the parties relies on Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (Cum. Supp. 1980) as controlling and supporting-his or her position. The statute, in substance, provides for allowance of alimony from one party to the other based on the following considerations: (1) The circumstances of the parties; (2) The length of the marriage; (3) The contributions by the parties; and (4) The ability of the supported party to engage in gainful employment. ... We are of the opinion that the disposition as made by the trial court should be affirmed; our scrutiny of the record failing to find any abuse of discretion, excessiveness of the award, or that the same was contrary to law.

Section 42-365 calls for reasonable alimony in light of the parties’ circumstances, including the paying party’s ability to pay.

Cole v. Cole · filed 1981-04-10

A review of the record convinces us that the alimony award ordered by the trial court was, under the circumstances of this case, unreasonably harsh and burdensome, and beyond his ability to pay, notwithstanding the unfortunate circumstances in which the appellee finds herself as a result of her accident.

Section 42-365 makes reasonableness the ultimate criterion for whether to award alimony, its amount, and its duration.

Johnson v. Johnson · filed 1981-07-02

In determining whether alimony should be awarded, in what amount, and over what period of time, the ultimate criterion under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (Reissue 1978), as well as the former decisions of this court, is one of reasonableness. ... Upon this record, we cannot say that the refusal to award alimony was patently unfair.

Section 42-365 makes reasonableness the ultimate criterion for whether to award alimony, how much to award, and for how long.

Koubek v. Koubek · filed 1982-06-25

In determining whether alimony should be awarded, in what amount, and over what period of time, the ultimate criterion under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (Cum. Supp. 1980), as well as the former decisions of this court, is one of reasonableness.

Section 42-365 uses reasonableness to assess an alimony award, taking account of circumstances such as the length of the marriage and the parties’ earnings.

Pittman v. Pittman · filed 1984-03-09

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (Cum. Supp. 1982) sets forth the criteria which are to be used in determining the award and amount of alimony. The ultimate test is one of reasonableness.

Section 42-365 requires property division and alimony to be reasonable in light of the facts of each case.

Sonntag v. Sonntag · filed 1985-03-29

The ultimate test for a division of property, as well as alimony, is reasonableness determined by the facts of each case. ... We have reviewed the record de novo and find the division of property and award of alimony, in accordance with the dispositions made by the trial court, are reasonable.

Section 42-365 makes reasonableness, based on the facts of each case, the test for dividing property and awarding alimony.

Bryan v. Bryan · filed 1986-03-07

The ultimate test for the division of property and awards of alimony is “reasonableness” as determined by the facts of each case.

Section 42-365 requires an alimony award to be reasonable in light of the facts of the case.

Ray v. Ray · filed 1986-03-28

Ultimately, the test for the award of alimony is one of reasonableness as determined by the facts of each case. Sonntag v. Sonntag, 219 Neb. 583, 365 N.W.2d 411 (1985); Neb.Rev.Stat. § 42-365 (Reissue 1984). ... We do determine, however, that the trial court did abuse its discretion in the amount of alimony.

Section 42-365 requires courts setting the amount and duration of alimony to consider the parties' overall circumstances and make a fair and equitable award.

Pyke v. Pyke · filed 1982-07-09

It seems clear to us that by amending this section the Legislature intended that the trial court, in the first instance, and this court, on review, were to look at the overall circumstances of the parties and to attempt, if possible, to provide for the award of alimony for such period of time and under such conditions as would minimize any substantial and unnecessary disruption in the lives of the parties occasioned by reason of the dissolution of marriage.

Section 42-365 requires a reasonable alimony award based on the parties’ circumstances, including their earning capacity.

Gleason v. Gleason · filed 1984-11-09

We are of the opinion that, taking into consideration that Betty received the house free and clear and her needs in maintaining the house, $800 per month as alimony is clearly in excess of what is a reasonable amount under the circumstances, especially in view of the earning capacity of each party. We believe that alimony in the amount of $400 per month would be reasonable under the circumstances.

Section 42-365 permits alimony for a spouse’s continued support when economic conditions and other circumstances make it appropriate; the award must be reasonable.

McCollister v. McCollister · filed 1985-04-12

The purpose of alimony is to provide for the continued maintenance or support of Shirlee when economic conditions and other circumstances make it appropriate. § 42-365. ... From the whole record we conclude that the alimony award was unreasonable, amounting to an abuse of discretion.

Section 42-365 requires an alimony award to account for the parties’ economic circumstances, contributions to the marriage, interrupted education or career opportunities, and ability to work.

Ritchie v. Ritchie · filed 1987-10-16

Our de novo review of the record reveals that the alimony awarded falls short of fulfilling the purpose and objectives of alimony as set forth in § 42-365. ... From the entire record we conclude that the alimony awarded was inadequate and constitutes an abuse of discretion by the district court.

Section 42-365 directs courts to consider the parties’ circumstances, the duration of the marriage, and each party’s contributions when determining reasonable alimony.

Ford v. Ford · filed 1985-01-04

Among factors to be considered by a court in determining reasonable alimony are the circumstances of the parties, duration of the marriage, and contributions to the marriage by each party. See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (Reissue 1984). ... In our de novo review of the record in this case, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in decreeing that Barton pay Patricia reasonable alimony as indicated.

Section 42-365 calls for a reasonable alimony award based on the marriage’s duration, each spouse’s contributions, the supported spouse’s ability to work, and the parties’ income, earning capacity, and circumstances.

Gale v. Gale · filed 1987-02-27

An appropriate award of alimony must turn on reasonableness and the circumstances of each case in light of the factors set forth in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (Reissue 1984). Those factors include duration of the marriage, history of the contributions to the marriage by each party, and the ability of the supported party to engage in gainful employment. In addition to the specific criteria listed in § 42-365, the income and earning capacity of each party, as well as the general equities of each situation, must be considered. ... With the foregoing in mind, we believe that the trial court abused its discretion in setting the amount of alimony.

Section 42-365 requires an alimony award to be reasonable in light of the parties’ circumstances, including their income, earning capacity, and the equities of the case.

Hamm v. Hamm · filed 1988-04-21

An appropriate award of alimony must turn on reasonableness and the circumstances of each case in light of the factors set forth in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (Reissue 1984). The income and earning capacity of each party, as well as the general equities of each situation, must be considered. ... No abuse of discretion is found in the trial court’s award of alimony in the case at bar.

Section 42-365 requires courts to consider the parties’ circumstances, their contributions during the marriage, and the supported party’s ability to work when deciding a reasonable alimony award.

Keim v. Keim · filed 1988-06-03

Under § 42-365, this court, in deciding what is reasonable, should consider the circumstances of the parties, duration of the marriage, a history of the contributions to the marriage by each party, including contributions to the care and education of the children, and interruption of personal careers or educational opportunities, and the ability of the supported party to engage in gainful employment without interfering with the interests of any minor children in the custody of such party. ... We do not believe the trial court abused its discretion in the amount of alimony awarded.

Section 42-365 permits reasonable alimony based on the parties’ circumstances, the length of the marriage, their contributions, and their ability to earn income.

Ritz v. Ritz · filed 1988-09-23

In connection with the alimony to be awarded to petitioner, we are governed by the provisions of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (Reissue 1984), which provides: ... Accordingly, respondent is to pay petitioner the sum of $750 per month alimony for a period of 4 years from the date of the decree herein on August 29, 1986.

Section 42-365 requires alimony awards to account for the circumstances of each case and its statutory factors, with reasonableness as the ultimate test.

Lager v. Lager · filed 1989-05-19

While an appropriate award must be based on the circumstances of each case in light of the factors found in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (Reissue 1988), the ultimate test is one of reasonableness.

Section 42-365 permits alimony when a spouse needs education or training to earn a living without interfering with the interests of children in that spouse’s custody.

Druba v. Druba · filed 1991-06-07

Under the circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding alimony, in that the wife must receive further education or training in order to engage in gainful employment without interfering with the interests of the parties’ children, the youngest of whom is now 5 years old.

Section 42-365 calls for a reasonable alimony award that considers the supported spouse’s employment prospects and the supporting spouse’s earning capacity.

Stuczynski v. Stuczynski · filed 1991-06-14

The court should consider what effect, if any, the marriage has had upon the ability of the supported spouse, if any, to secure employment in the future and should consider the earning capacity of the supporting spouse. ... Under the circumstances, the district court abused its discretion in awarding alimony of $350 per month for a period of 7 years. We modify the alimony award to $300 per month for 7 years.

Section 42-365 makes reasonableness the ultimate criterion for deciding whether to award alimony, in what amount, and for how long.

Preston v. Preston · filed 1992-07-31

As noted in part 111(2) above, § 42-365 provides that “[t]he purpose of alimony is to provide for the continued maintenance or support of one party by the other when the relative economic circumstances and the other criteria enumerated in this section make it appropriate.” In determining whether alimony should be awarded, in what amount, and over what period of time, the ultimate criterion is one of reasonableness.

Section 42-365 permits an alimony award based on the parties’ circumstances; anticipated periodic expense and bitter personalities are not grounds to deny it.

Hafer v. Hafer · filed 1994-11-08

Periodic expense and bitter personalities are not criteria upon which to award or deny alimony. Given our de novo standard of review, we find that alimony should be awarded. Therefore, we modify the decree of dissolution to provide that Douglas pay Paula $300 per month until the death of either party.

Section 42-365 permits alimony when reasonable in light of the parties’ circumstances, including their contributions to the marriage, career interruptions, and ability to work.

LaBenz v. LaBenz · filed 1998-02-17

There is no evidence that Ellen interrupted her education or career for the marriage, or suffered any economic disadvantage from the marriage, nor is there evidence that she is unable to engage in gainful employment. "The purpose of alimony is to provide for the continued maintenance or support of one party by the other when the rela-tive economic circumstances ... make it appropriate." § 42-365. ... We cannot say that the trial court's refusal to award alimony was unreasonable or that it constituted an abuse of discretion.

Section 42-365 requires courts deciding alimony to consider the particular facts and equities of the marriage, including the listed factors.

Dormann v. Dormann · filed 2000-02-22

A decision whether to award alimony must be made on the particular facts and equities of each individual case, and the court must consider all of the facts and equities, in addition to those facts specifically enumerated in § 42-365. ... Based upon our de novo review of the record, we find that the parties were married for approximately 21 years and that given the unusual nature of Randall’s employment, we cannot say that the district court’s award of alimony in the amount of $250 per month for 36 months was an abuse of its discretion.

Section 42-365 supplies criteria for alimony awards; courts also consider each party’s income and earning capacity and the general equities.

Walker v. Walker · filed 2001-01-09

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (Reissue 1998) provides specific statutory criteria for consideration in an alimony award, and the Supreme Court has said that in addition to such criteria, the court should consider the income and earning capacity of each party as well as the general equities of each situation. ... Under these circumstances, an alimony award of $500 per month for 5 years is hardly unreasonable.

Section 42-365 requires a reasonable alimony award based on factors including the marriage’s duration, the spouses’ circumstances, and their ability to support themselves.

Ritter v. Ritter · filed 1990-01-12

However, neither Gary nor Susan interrupted “personal careers or educational opportunities,” see § 42-365, as the result of their marriage. Each party is capable of self-support. Given the duration of the Ritter marriage for approximately 4 years, and after our de novo review, we conclude that the district court abused its discretion in awarding alimony to Susan. Therefore, the district court’s judgment regarding alimony is reversed.

Section 42-365 requires courts deciding alimony to consider all its listed factors, including the earning capacity of both spouses.

Thiltges v. Thiltges · filed 1995-02-10

However, the trial court should also consider all of the enumerated factors identified in § 42-365, including the earning capacity of both spouses.

Section 42-365 requires courts deciding alimony to consider all the facts and equities of the case, including those beyond the factors it lists.

Gerard-Ley v. Ley · filed 1996-12-31

A decision on whether to award alimony must be made on the particular facts and equities of each individual case, and the court must consider all of the facts and equities, in addition to those specifically enumerated in § 42-365.

Section 42-365 directs courts deciding alimony to consider the parties’ circumstances, the length of the marriage, their contributions, their ability to earn income, and the equities of the case.

Kosiske v. Kosiske · filed 1999-09-28

In awarding alimony, a court should consider, in addition to specific statutory criteria, the income and earning capacity of each party as well as the general equities of each situation. ... Even with the parties’ disparate incomes, there is no evidence on this record to show that Jolene interrupted her career during the marriage or that she gave up educational opportunities for her family’s sake. Given the limited evidence on this record in that regard, we conclude that the district court abused its discretion in awarding Jolene alimony for an additional 36 months at $200 per month.

Section 42-365 directs courts setting alimony to consider the parties’ circumstances, the length of the marriage, their contributions to it, and the supported party’s ability to work without interfering with the interests of minor children.

Grams v. Grams · filed 2001-03-06

Factors which should be considered by a court in determining alimony include (1) the circumstances of the parties; (2) the duration of the marriage; (3) the history of contributions to the marriage, including contributions to the care and education of the children, and interruption of personal careers or educational opportunities; 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. Kalkowski v. Kalkowski, 258 Neb. 1035, 607 N.W.2d 517 (2000); § 42-365. ... Upon our review of the record, consideration of the statutory factors, earning capacity, and relative economic circumstances of the parties, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion either in awarding alimony or in the amount of that award.

Section 42-365 permits reasonable alimony based on the parties’ circumstances, including their earning capacities and financial obligations.

Hildebrand v. Hildebrand · filed 1991-11-22

We begin this aspect of our analysis by recalling that Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (Reissue 1988) states in part: ... Under the circumstances, we conclude that the alimony awarded is inadequate. Although the $500 per month awarded for the first 6 months should not be modified, the $200 per month awarded thereafter for the rest of her life is to be increased to $400 per month.

Section 42-365 permits alimony to support an economically disadvantaged spouse during the transition to self-sufficiency.

Kelly v. Kelly · filed 1993-12-21

Nebraska statutes and case law clearly indicate that alimony is a means of helping the economically disadvantaged party get through the period of transition after the divorce, until that party becomes self-sufficient, remarries, or dies.

Section 42-365 permits alimony for a party’s maintenance when the parties’ relative economic circumstances and the statute’s other criteria make it appropriate.

Kelly v. Kelly · filed 1994-05-27

Section 42-365 does not define the purpose of alimony to be as narrow as the Court of Appeals concluded. Rather, the final paragraph of the statute indicates that alimony is to provide for the maintenance of one party by another when the relative economic circumstances and other criteria enumerated above make it appropriate.

Section 42-365 permits courts to consider income from inherited property when deciding whether to award alimony and in what amount.

Ainslie v. Ainslie · filed 1995-09-26

The fact that property is inherited and therefore excluded from division does not prevent the income it generates from being considered when determining alimony.

Section 42-365 requires a reasonable alimony award that accounts for the parties’ circumstances, the length of the marriage, their contributions and career interruptions, and the supported party’s ability to work.

Edmonds v. Edmonds · filed 2013-11-12

When deciding whether to award alimony, a court should consider the factors set forth in § 42-365. ... Our review of the facts in this case in light of the factors involved in an alimony award leads us to conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it awarded Rowena alimony in the amount of $500 per month for 3 years.

Section 42-365 calls for reasonable alimony based on the spouses’ circumstances, including their ability to work, career interruptions, and earning capacity.

Brown v. Brown · filed 2013-11-19

Neither party interrupted a career or education to care for the children. Also, both parties have been able to engage in gainful employment without interfering with the interests of the children. ... Thus, there is not much discrepancy in their ability to earn income. We find no abuse of discretion in the court’s declination to award alimony to either party.

Section 42-365 directs courts deciding alimony to consider the parties’ circumstances, the length of the marriage, their contributions to it, and the supported party’s ability to work while caring for minor children.

Hill v. Hill · filed 2001-10-02

Factors which should be considered by a court in determining alimony include (1) the circumstances of the parties; (2) the duration of the marriage; (3) the history of contributions to the marriage, including contributions to the care and education of the children, and interruption of personal careers or educational opportunities; 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. ... On these facts, we cannot conclude that the denial of alimony was an abuse of discretion.

Section 42-365 requires courts to consider the parties’ relative economic circumstances and interruptions to careers or education when deciding alimony.

Shafer v. Shafer · filed 2007-11-13

Layne argues that when the statutory factors for an award of alimony set forth in Neb.Rev.Stat. § 42-365 (Reissue 2004) are examined, there is no justification for even this rather insignificant sum of alimony, and we agree. ... Of considerably more import are the relative economic circumstances of the parties and the interruption of careers and education. The latter is not a factor, given the absence of evidence, and the economic circumstances would favor an award of alimony to Layne before an award of alimony to Kristi. While the $40 is arguably an inconsequential sum, the fact is that the record does not justify an award of any alimony to Kristi. The district court's award of alimony is unsupported by the record, is untenable, and is an abuse of discretion, and we hereby vacate the alimony award.

Section 42-365 requires alimony to be reasonable in light of the parties’ circumstances, including their contributions to the marriage, earning capacity, and ability to work.

Sharp v. Sharp · filed 2013-04-09

In addition to the specific criteria listed in § 42-365, in dividing property and considering alimony upon a dissolution of marriage, a court is to consider the income and earning capacity of each party as well as the general equities of each situation. ... After our review of the facts of this case in light of the factors involved in an alimony award, we find the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Rhonda alimony in the amount of $3,500 per month for 114 months.

Section 42-365’s alimony analysis includes each party’s income and earning capacity and the general equities, in addition to the factors the statute lists.

Becker v. Becker · filed 2013-06-25

In addition to the criteria listed in § 42-365, in consid- ering alimony upon a dissolution of marriage, a trial court is to consider the income and earning capacity of each party, as well as the general equities of each situation.

Section 42-365 directs courts to consider the spouses’ circumstances, the length of the marriage, their contributions, interrupted careers or education, and the supported spouse’s ability to work when awarding alimony.

Kunnemann v. Kunnemann · filed 2014-06-10

A court should consider the factors set forth in § 42-365 when awarding alimony. ... Our review of the record in this case in light of the factors involved in an alimony award leads us to conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it awarded Deborah alimony in the amount of $500 per month for 180 months.

Section 42-365 requires courts considering alimony to weigh each party’s income and earning capacity and the general equities of the situation along with the statutory criteria.

Keady v. Keady · filed 2014-09-09

In addition to the criteria listed in § 42-365, in considering alimony upon a dissolution of marriage, a trial court is to consider the income and earning capacity of each party, as well as the general equities of each situation.

Section 42-365 provides factors for determining the amount of alimony.

Bowers v. Lens · filed 2002-07-26

We determine, after reviewing the record de novo and considering the factors set forth in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (Reissue 1998), that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Bowers $400 per month alimony for the time period at issue.

Section 42-365 permits alimony in an amount and for a duration reasonable under the parties’ circumstances.

Geise v. Geise · filed 2013-12-10

Upon our review of the evidence, we find the trial court did not err in awarding alimony in an amount and duration that was reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances.

Section 42-365 permits reasonable alimony based on the parties’ circumstances, including the length of the marriage and the supported spouse’s ability to work.

Simon v. Simon · filed 2009-08-11

Given the length of the marriage, Cheryl's severe disability, Richard's educational level and residual earning capacity despite his retirement from OPS, and the parties' relatively young ages at 51 for Cheryl and 54 for Richard, we find that the alimony term of a mere 60 months is significantly inadequate and was an abuse of discretion. Therefore, the term of alimony should be 120 months.

Alimony determinations under § 42-365 may account for bonuses and commissions a spouse has consistently earned over several years.

Kellog v. Kellog · filed 2013-08-06

Because she has consistently earned this additional income for a number of years, it is appropriate to consider these amounts when determining whether to award alimony.

Section 42-365 directs courts to consider the parties’ financial circumstances when awarding alimony; changes to the marital estate and income may require reconsideration of the award.

Marshall v. Marshall · filed 2016-08-16

Clearly, an award of alimony is intricately tied to the incomes and other relevant financial circumstances of each party. See § 42-365.

Section 42-365 permits alimony for a spouse’s continued support when the parties’ relative economic circumstances and the statutory criteria make an award appropriate.

Hovey v. Hovey · filed 2017-05-16

The purpose of alimony is to provide for the continued maintenance or support of one party by the other when the relative economic circumstances and the other criteria enumerated in § 42-365 make it appropriate. Brozek, supra. ... After a de novo review of the record and considering the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the alimony award is not an abuse of discretion.

Section 42-365 directs courts to consider the parties’ circumstances when awarding alimony, including an affidavit of support as evidence of those circumstances.

Anderson v. Anderson · filed 2015-04-03

The court could consider the affidavit of support—signed by Wade but neither dated nor notarized—as evidence of the parties’ circumstances, a factor that § 42-365 directs courts to consider.

Section 42-365 directs courts to consider the parties’ circumstances, the duration of the marriage, their contributions, and the supported party’s ability to work when awarding alimony.

Manhart v. Manhart · filed 2015-05-05

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (Reissue 2008) lists specific criteria which a court should consider when awarding alimony. ... After our review of the facts of this case in light of the factors involved in an alimony award, we find the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Paul alimony in the amount of $1,250 per month for a period of 60 months.

Section 42-365 directs courts deciding alimony to consider the parties’ circumstances, the length of the marriage, their contributions to it, and the supported party’s ability to work without interfering with the interests of minor children in that party’s custody.

Binder v. Binder · filed 2015-06-26

Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (Reissue 2008), courts should consider four factors relative to alimony: (1) the cir- cumstances 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.

In applying § 42-365’s alimony criteria, a court may consider a spouse’s income from a solely owned company, including retained earnings the spouse controls.

Morehead v. Morehead · filed 2015-09-29

In addition to the specific criteria listed in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (Reissue 2008), in dividing property and considering alimony upon a dissolution of marriage, a court should consider the income and earning capacity of each party and the general equities of the situation. ... Because Greg is the president and sole shareholder of M&M Construction, and has full control over the distribution of retained earnings, the district court correctly considered the company’s retained earnings when determining Greg’s income for alimony purposes.

Section 42-365 does not list maintaining the marital lifestyle as an alimony factor, but a court may consider it.

Laird v. Laird · filed 2015-12-29

The specific statutory considerations for alimony set forth in § 42-365 do not mention the ability of the supported party to maintain a lifestyle similar to that enjoyed during the marriage, but it is a factor that may be considered.

When deciding alimony under § 42-365, a court should consider each party’s income and earning capacity and the general equities.

Fochtman v. Fochtman · filed 2016-01-05

In addition to the criteria listed in § 42-365, a trial court determining alimony should consider the income and earning capacity of each party and the general equities of the situation.

Section 42-365 directs courts considering alimony to weigh the parties’ circumstances, the length of the marriage, contributions to the marriage, and the supported party’s ability to work.

Ludtke v. Ludtke · filed 2016-02-02

Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (Reissue 2008), courts should consider four factors relative to alimony: (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.

Section 42-365 directs courts deciding alimony to consider the parties’ circumstances, the marriage’s duration, their contributions to it, and the supported party’s ability to work without interfering with the interests of minor children in either party’s custody.

Richter v. Richter · filed 2016-05-24

Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (Reissue 2008), courts should consider four factors relative to alimony: (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. ... Upon our de novo review, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s alimony award to Kimberly of $50 per month for 60 months.