Opinion ID: 1274461
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: transition account

Text: Cynthia also argues that the district court erred in its findings regarding the transition account maintained by her employer at the time of the Peters' divorce. She asserts that the transition account was disclosed to James at the time of the divorce. As discussed previously, a property settlement agreement which has become final generally cannot be vacated or modified in the absence of fraud or gross inequity. Reinsch, 259 Neb. at 569, 611 N.W.2d at 90. James contends that the district court was correct in modifying the decree of dissolution and awarding him one-half of the transition account because Cynthia's failure to disclose the account constitute[d] fraud on her part. Brief for appellee at 21. Our review of the record, however, shows that the existence of the transition account was not withheld from James. James received copies of Cynthia's pay stubs during pretrial discovery in the original divorce proceedings, and furthermore, Cynthia's pretrial memorandum identified Current wage stubs as an exhibit. These pay stubs listed the transition account and its current balance. In our de novo review, we find nothing supporting James' claim that Cynthia purposely tried to hide the existence of the account. James alternatively argues that even if the transition account was disclosed, it was not a part of the original property settlement that was incorporated into the decree of dissolution. He cites Buhrmann v. Buhrmann, 231 Neb. 831, 835, 438 N.W.2d 481, 484 (1989), for the proposition that a decree of dissolution which does not contain a complete adjudication of property rights of the parties does not operate as an absolute bar to the maintenance of an independent action by either of the parties involving such rights. Buhrmann does not apply here. James and Cynthia signed the property settlement agreement which stated that wife and husband completely waive all right, claim or interest in property of the other and in the estate of each other ... and that said waiver was made with full knowledge and fair disclosure of the nature and extent of the respective property in the estate of each party. In our de novo review of the record, we determine the transition account was disclosed to James and covered by the property settlement agreement. Accordingly, we find that the district court abused its discretion in modifying the decree of dissolution to award James $3,820.47 based on the alleged value of the account.