Court Opinion

ID: 9670764
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:25:24.506843+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:06.374536
License: Public Domain

Colwell, D. J., Retired,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
The majority places undue emphasis on a mathematical division of property, without regard for all of the attending circumstances and the alimony needs of the appellant. The parties did not own a family home.
Most of the assets are related to the production of farm income by the husband, who remains responsible for alimony, child education and support, and the payment of debts.
Some of the asset values are not realistic when considering the overlapping questions of alimony and division of property. Appellee owns an undivided one-half interest in a four-unit apartment house in Lincoln, Nebraska, having a total value of $65,000, subject to a mortgage of $45,000. The rental income is consumed by the mortgage loan payments, insurance, taxes, and repairs; it is not an “income” asset. It is valued at $10,000. He owns an undivided interest in a combine, corn head, augers (two), parts of a pivot system, and irrigation motors, having a total assigned value of $41,000. These undivided interests have limited salability. Appellee owns stock in a farm cooperative valued at $22,887; it cannot be transferred for value, and it cannot be redeemed until age 65 years.
*361Under the circumstances the trial judge made a considered effort to comply with Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (Cum. Supp. 1982) and at the same time do justice to both parties.
I would affirm.