Opinion ID: 1274461
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: modification of decree for mathematical error

Text: Cynthia argues in her next assignment of error that the district court erred in modifying the decree of dissolution to correct a mathematical error in the original money judgment designed to equalize the division of the Peters' marital estate. The district court entered the decree of dissolution in 1998, and neither James nor Cynthia appealed. [W]here a party to a divorce action voluntarily executes a property settlement agreement which is approved by the dissolution court and incorporated into a divorce decree from which no appeal is taken, provisions dealing with division of real and personal property, division of pension benefits, and division of stock will not thereafter be vacated or modified in the absence of fraud or gross inequity. Reinsch v. Reinsch, 259 Neb. 564, 568-69, 611 N.W.2d 86, 90 (2000). James contends the mathematical error was due to neglect on the part of the parties, counsel, and the court, and constituted fraud or gross inequity. Brief for appellee at 22. This court has previously determined that `what constitutes fraud is a matter of fact in each case.' Peters v. Woodmen Accident & Life Co., 170 Neb. 861, 870, 104 N.W.2d 490, 497 (1960). We have also stated that `[f]raud may consist in words, acts, or the suppression of material facts with the intent to mislead and deceive.' Pasko v. Trela, 153 Neb. 759, 762, 46 N.W.2d 139, 143 (1951). A mathematical error occurring as a result of neglect on the part of the parties, counsel, and the court does not, under our de novo review of this record, constitute fraud. James had the opportunity to review the property settlement agreement and divorce decree, and he was represented by counsel throughout. Any alleged error was present in the decree from the outset. Furthermore, assuming the existence of the mathematical error, an error of $2,256 under this record does not constitute gross inequity when viewed in light of the Peters' combined marital assets that totaled more than $600,000 at the time of the decree. In our de novo review of the record, we determine that James has failed to establish fraud or gross inequity. Having so determined, we find the district court abused its discretion in modifying the decree of dissolution to correct the mathematical error.