Opinion ID: 1850324
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Property Division and Cynthia's Retirement Plans

Text: Billy first contends that the property award was inequitable. Both parties included charts in their briefs to show the court's property division but disagree about the property values and the allocation of debts. For example, they disagree over the value of a boat, whether certain debts were included, and whether proceeds from a motorcycle sale were included. The following is an explanation of the district court's award: CYNTHIA Assets Home Equity: $68,000 Value $185,000 First mortgage (117,000) Retirement plan 8,759 Debts (9,940) _______ Total Equity $ 66,819 BILLY Assets Rental properties equity: $44,666 (based on one-third interest) Value $275,000 Mortgages (141,000) _________ $134,000 Bayliner boat 6,000 Debts Second mortgage (22,500) Boat loan (8,700) ________ Total Equity $19,466 [3,4] Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (Reissue 1998), the purpose of a property division is to distribute the marital assets equitably between the parties. Gibilisco v. Gibilisco , 263 Neb. 27, 637 N.W.2d 898 (2002). In an action for dissolution of marriage, a court may divide property between the parties in accordance with the equities of the situation, irrespective of how legal title is held. Medlock v. Medlock , 263 Neb. 666, 642 N.W.2d 113 (2002). [5,6] 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. Schaefer v. Schaefer , 263 Neb. 785, 642 N.W.2d 792 (2002); Hajenga v. Hajenga , 257 Neb. 841, 601 N.W.2d 528 (1999). Although the division of property is not subject to a precise mathematical formula, the general rule is to award a spouse one-third to one-half of the marital estate, the polestar being fairness and reasonableness as determined by the facts of each case. Gibilisco v. Gibilisco, supra . Here, the award of $66,819 of assets to Cynthia and $19,466 to Billy is unreasonable and unfair. Cynthia was awarded over two-thirds of the marital estate, when the record does not support such an unequal distribution of property. The youngest child will reach the age of majority on September 16, 2004, and it would be beneficial for Cynthia to remain in the house until that time. But we determine that to fairly divide the property, the house should be sold after September 16, 2004, and the two mortgages paid off. Billy shall continue to pay the second mortgage until the house is sold. At that time, the second mortgage will be paid in full from the proceeds of the sale. Billy next argues that the district court erred in its division of Cynthia's retirement savings plan and annuity plan. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the court did not err in how it divided those plans. Having determined that the house should be sold after September 16, 2004, with the mortgages paid off from the proceeds, and that the retirement plans should be awarded to Cynthia, based on the values in the record, we order the following division of property: CYNTHIA Assets Home Equity: $45,500 Value $185,000 First mortgage (117,000) Second mortgage (22,500) Retirement plan 8,759 Debts (9,940) ________ Total Equity $44,319 BILLY Assets Rental properties equity: $44,666 (based on one-third interest) Value $275,000 Mortgages (141,000) ________ $134,000 Bayliner boat 6,000 Debts Boat loan (8,700) ________ Total Equity $41,966