Case ID: neb_219/html/0538-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam. Boslaugh, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Christina A. Kochenash, appellee and cross-appellant, v. Anthony Kochenash, appellant and cross-appellee.
    363 N.W.2d 926
    Filed March 22, 1985.
    No. 83-942.
    William L. Howland of Bump, Howland & Watson, for appellant.
    Judy L. Raetz of Raetz & Bergfield, for appellee.
    Krivosha, C.J., Boslaugh, White, Hastings, Caporale, Shanahan, and Grant, JJ.
   Per Curiam.

Upon de novo review we conclude that the record fails to show an abuse of discretion in regard to the division of property or the award of alimony. The judgment is, therefore, affirmed.

The parties shall pay their own costs and attorney fees.

Affirmed.

Boslaugh, J.,

dissenting in part.

While I agree generally with the findings of the trial court in this matter, I believe the record shows an abuse of discretion in the division of property.

There seems to be a wide latitude in the treatment of inherited property in our cases. See, Applegate v. Applegate, ante p. 532, 365 N.W.2d 394 (1985); Ross v. Ross, ante p. 528, 364 N.W.2d 508 (1985).

In this case the trial court set off $31,793 plus certain specific items as property received by the petitioner by gift or inheritance during a marriage of some 23 years.

In my opinion, a more equitable division of the property would be made if the respondent were awarded the $10,000 certificate of deposit in the Platte Valley Federal Savings and Loan Association.

Grant, J., joins in this dissent.