Case ID: neb_231/html/0928-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Patricia Ann Heser, appellant and cross-appellee, v. Michael Paul Heser, appellee and cross-appellant.
    438 N.W.2d 795
    Filed April 27, 1989.
    No. 87-156.
    Hal W. Anderson, of Berry, Anderson, Creager & Wittstruck, for appellant.
    Larry L. Brauer, of Allan, Brauer & Mullally, for appellee.
    Hastings, C.J., White, Caporale, and Fahrnbruch, JJ., and Coady.D.J.
   Per Curiam.

The respondent-appellee, Michael Paul Heser, cross-appeals the division of property. The petitioner-appellant, Patricia Ann Heser, has dismissed her appeal.

As required in cases of this nature, we have reviewed the record de novo to determine whether the district court abused its discretion in dividing the property of the parties. See, Fox v. Fox, 230 Neb. 218, 430 N.W.2d 542 (1988); Griffith v. Griffith, 230 Neb. 314, 431 N.W.2d 609 (1988).

Upon a de novo review of this case, we find no patent unfairness in the distribution of property and debts of the parties. See, Rezac v. Rezac, 221 Neb. 516, 378 N.W.2d 196 (1985); Black v. Black, 221 Neb. 533, 378 N.W.2d 849 (1985). Therefore, there was no abuse of discretion by the trial court, and its decree should be affirmed.

Each party shall pay his or her own costs and attorney fees in this court.

Affirmed.