Court Opinion

ID: 9399199
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-02 14:07:38.928775+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:45.093923
License: Public Domain

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
06/02/2023 09:07 AM CDT

                                                      - 370 -
                               Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                                        314 Nebraska Reports
                                               PARISH V. PARISH
                                               Cite as 314 Neb. 370

                             Robert J. Parish, appellee, v. Kathleen M.
                                 Parish, now known as Kathleen
                                       M. Spence, appellant.
                                                 ___ N.W.2d ___

                                        Filed June 2, 2023.     No. S-22-066.

                 1. Modification of Decree: Appeal and Error. Modification of a dis-
                    solution decree is a matter entrusted to the discretion of the trial court,
                    whose order is reviewed de novo on the record, and will be affirmed
                    absent an abuse of discretion by the trial court.
                 2. Judges: Words and Phrases. A judicial abuse of discretion exists if the
                    reasons or rulings of a trial judge are clearly untenable, unfairly depriv-
                    ing a litigant of a substantial right and denying just results in matters
                    submitted for disposition.
                 3. Divorce: Property Division: Armed Forces: Pensions. Federal law
                    does not preempt the power of a state court to treat a future nondis-
                    ability veteran’s pension entitlement as a marital asset in a dissolu-
                    tion proceeding.
                 4. ____: ____: ____: ____. Disposable retired military pay is divisible
                    property in a divorce under the Uniformed Services Former Spouses’
                    Protection Act, 10 U.S.C. § 1408(c)(1) (2018).
                 5. ____: ____: ____: ____. If disposable retired pay is reduced by the
                    veteran’s election of disability benefits, the state court may not order a
                    veteran to indemnify a former spouse for the loss of a former spouse’s
                    share of the veteran’s retirement pay caused by the veteran’s election to
                    separately receive disability benefits.
                 6. Divorce: Property Division: Armed Forces: Final Orders. Where a
                    state court enters a judgment of divorce dividing military benefits, and
                    no appeal is taken therefrom, such division becomes a final order.
                 7. Judgments: Collateral Attack. Only a void judgment may be collater-
                    ally attacked.
                 8. Judgments: Jurisdiction. When considering whether a previous order
                    is void, it is critical to differentiate between a judgment entered
                                      - 371 -
             Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                      314 Nebraska Reports
                               PARISH V. PARISH
                               Cite as 314 Neb. 370

      without jurisdiction and an erroneous judgment that may nevertheless
      be enforceable.
 9.   Divorce: Property Division: Armed Forces: Claim Preclusion. When
      a divorce decree erroneously divides military benefits, the state law
      of claim preclusion, also known as res judicata, applies to determine
      whether relitigation of the issue may occur.
10.   Judgments: Jurisdiction: Collateral Attack. Judgments entered with-
      out personal jurisdiction or subject matter jurisdiction are void and sub-
      ject to collateral attack.
11.   Actions: Jurisdiction. The lack of subject matter jurisdiction can be
      raised at any time by any party or by the court sua sponte.
12.   Modification of Decree: Alimony: Good Cause: Words and Phrases.
      “Good cause” for modifying an alimony award means a material and
      substantial change in circumstances and depends upon the circumstances
      of each case.
13.   Modification of Decree: Alimony: Armed Forces: Pensions: Waiver.
      While a Nebraska court may not include service-connected disability
      benefits awarded to a military retiree as a part of a marital estate, it may
      consider such benefits and the corresponding waiver of retirement pen-
      sion benefits required by federal law in determining whether there has
      been a material change in circumstances which would justify modifica-
      tion of an alimony award to a former spouse.

  Appeal from the District Court for Sarpy County: Stefanie
A. Martinez, Judge. Reversed and remanded for further
proceedings.
  Aimee S. Melton and Megan E. Shupe, of Reagan, Melton &
Delaney, L.L.P., for appellant.
  Van A. Schroeder, of Bertolini, Schroeder & Blount, for
appellee.
  Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke,
Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.
   Miller-Lerman, J.
                    NATURE OF CASE
   Kathleen M. Parish, now known as Kathleen M. Spence,
filed a motion to modify alimony. The district court for
Sarpy County dismissed the motion for lack of subject matter
                              - 372 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  314 Nebraska Reports
                        PARISH V. PARISH
                        Cite as 314 Neb. 370

jurisdiction. Kathleen appeals. A dissolution decree (Decree)
had awarded each party an interest in the couple’s retire-
ment properties and in addition had awarded Kathleen ali-
mony that could be modified if her former spouse, Robert J.
Parish, accepted a veteran’s disability pension. The Decree
was not appealed. Robert accepted a veteran’s disability pen-
sion, thereby reducing his retirement benefits and consequently
reducing the value of Kathleen’s share of his benefits under the
Decree, and Kathleen sought to modify alimony. The district
court evidently believed that the original alimony award was
improper and, in any event, believed it was being asked to
divide Robert’s veteran’s disability benefits, which it concluded
it could not do because it was preempted by federal law. The
district court dismissed the matter for “lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.” Contrary to the district court’s reasoning, it was
merely being asked to consider modifying alimony based on
a reduction in Robert’s nondisability pension he shared with
Kathleen. We conclude the district court had jurisdiction to
consider the request to modify alimony, and we reverse, and
remand for further proceedings.
                   STATEMENT OF FACTS
   The parties were divorced in 2011 by consent decree. As
part of the property settlement, Robert received 50 percent of
Kathleen’s retirement account. The Decree further provided
that Kathleen was entitled to an interest in Robert’s mili-
tary pension under the Uniformed Services Former Spouses’
Protection Act (USFSPA), 10 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq. (2018).
Kathleen was awarded a 48-percent interest in Robert’s retire-
ment benefits. Because the parties contemplated that Robert
may receive disability upon retirement, thus reducing his tra-
ditional retirement pension to be shared with Kathleen, para-
graph P of the Decree awarded Kathleen “Special Alimony” in
the nominal amount of $1 per year. Paragraph P of the Decree
stated, “This alimony provision shall be subject to modifica-
tion only in the circumstance that there be a disability offset
                              - 373 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  314 Nebraska Reports
                        PARISH V. PARISH
                        Cite as 314 Neb. 370

against [Robert’s] net disposable, non-disability pension and
for no other reason.” The foregoing awards were not chal-
lenged on appeal.
   In 2012, Robert filed for and was given a disability rating
and was then awarded a veteran’s disability pension, which he
received separately; that award resulted in a waiver of a por-
tion of his retirement pension. Robert’s disposable retired pay
changed from $971.36 to $679.40 per month. The decrease
in Robert’s disposable retired pay reduced the amount that
Kathleen received under the Decree to a smaller figure.
   On May 18, 2018, Kathleen filed a complaint for modifica-
tion in which she alleged that there had been a material and
substantial change in circumstances that warranted modifica-
tion of the special alimony to accommodate for the reduction
in Robert’s pension because he had converted retirement bene-
fits to disability veteran’s benefits. Robert was served with the
complaint but failed to file an answer or appear for a hearing,
and defaulted. In its September 5 order, the district court found
there had been a material change in circumstances because
Robert was now receiving disability that reduced the amount
he received in nondisability pension funds, which in turn
negatively impacted Kathleen. The district court ordered that
Kathleen receive as alimony an amount equal to 48 percent
of Robert’s disability and ordered Robert to pay $13,034.76
to Kathleen, representing the amount she would have received
since the commencement of the disability offset to Robert’s
pension in 2012.
   Robert failed to make monthly payments under the order for
modification. On October 8, 2019, the court issued an order to
show cause. Robert filed a motion to dismiss and alleged that
the court “lacks jurisdiction over” Robert. The court denied the
motion to dismiss.
   On February 21, 2020, Robert moved to vacate the order
that had modified alimony. The court granted the motion,
and this order has not been challenged. The case proceeded
on the merits of the modification wherein Kathleen generally
                              - 374 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  314 Nebraska Reports
                        PARISH V. PARISH
                        Cite as 314 Neb. 370

maintained that the special alimony should be increased
because her portion of the retirement benefits had been
reduced. Robert generally maintained that the original ali-
mony award was improper and that the district court was cur-
rently being asked to divide disability benefits, which gener-
ally a state court may not divide under federal law.
   Trial was held on Kathleen’s complaint for modification on
December 13, 2021. Both parties testified and evidence was
adduced, although evidence of the parties’ present relative
income and wealth was limited. On January 7, 2022, the dis-
trict court filed an order that dismissed Kathleen’s complaint
for modification. The trial court characterized Kathleen’s
complaint, inter alia, as a request to divide Robert’s disability
pension, which it determined was preempted under federal
law. The order stated that the district court “lacks subject
matter jurisdiction to entertain the division of a VA disability
waiver pension due to federal preemption of that disabil-
ity pay.”
   Kathleen appeals.
                  ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
   On appeal, Kathleen claims that the district court erred
when it dismissed her complaint to modify alimony. Kathleen
specifically assigns, restated, that the district court erred when
it determined that (1) it was preempted from implementing the
alimony provisions of the Decree and (2) it lacked subject mat-
ter jurisdiction.
                  STANDARDS OF REVIEW
   [1,2] Modification of a dissolution decree is a matter
entrusted to the discretion of the trial court, whose order is
reviewed de novo on the record, and will be affirmed absent
an abuse of discretion by the trial court. Grothen v. Grothen,
308 Neb. 28, 952 N.W.2d 650 (2020). A judicial abuse of
discretion exists if the reasons or rulings of a trial judge are
clearly untenable, unfairly depriving a litigant of a substantial
                              - 375 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  314 Nebraska Reports
                        PARISH V. PARISH
                        Cite as 314 Neb. 370

right and denying just results in matters submitted for disposi-
tion. Id.
                          ANALYSIS
   The district court dismissed Kathleen’s motion to modify
alimony on the basis that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
We conclude this ruling was in error, and we reverse, and
remand for further proceedings.
   As explained below, as an initial matter we address Robert’s
assertion, endorsed by the district court, that the provision
of the Decree which permitted a modification of alimony if
Robert’s military pension was reduced by receipt of disability
benefits was preempted and improper. The alimony provi-
sion was not improper nor void. As further explained below,
whether or not the initial alimony award provision was erro-
neous, the award became final, subject to principles of res
judicata, and enforceable. Upon Kathleen’s request, the district
court had subject matter jurisdiction of the motion to modify
alimony and should have adhered to the customary exercise
of jurisdiction and standards applicable to a request to modify
alimony. See Longo v. Longo, 266 Neb. 171, 663 N.W.2d
604 (2003).
Division of Military Benefits: The Alimony
Provision in the Decree Is Not Void.
   Robert and the district court have indicated their belief that
the original alimony provision is void. Robert asserted that the
alimony provision is “undeniably a subterfuge to get around
federal preemption in hopes that the state court could divide a
veteran’s disability pension contrary to the [USFSPA], and the
Mansell and Howell decisions.” Brief for appellee at 13. We
reject this assertion.
   [3-5] It is well settled that federal law does not preempt
the power of a state court to treat a future nondisability
veteran’s pension entitlement as a marital asset in a disso-
lution proceeding. See Longo v. Longo, supra. Disposable
retired military pay is divisible property in a divorce under
                              - 376 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  314 Nebraska Reports
                        PARISH V. PARISH
                        Cite as 314 Neb. 370

the USFSPA, 10 U.S.C. § 1408(c)(1). See, also, Mansell v.
Mansell, 490 U.S. 581, 109 S. Ct. 2023, 104 L. Ed. 2d 675
(1989). However, if disposable retired pay is reduced by the
veteran’s election of disability benefits, the state court may
not order a veteran to indemnify a former spouse for the loss
of a former spouse’s share of the veteran’s retirement pay
caused by the veteran’s election to separately receive disabil-
ity benefits. Howell v. Howell, 581 U.S. 214, 137 S. Ct. 1400,
197 L. Ed. 2d 781 (2017).
   Our examination of the special alimony provision in the
Decree shows that it does not indemnify Kathleen for the
reduction of her share of veteran’s retirement pay. It does not
require division of Robert’s disability benefits. It merely pro-
vides that if Robert’s retired pay is reduced by his election of
disability benefits, Kathleen may seek a modification of ali-
mony. The reduction of the value of Kathleen’s share of retire-
ment pay would be a relevant consideration in a modification
of alimony analysis. See Kramer v. Kramer, 252 Neb. 526, 567
N.W.2d 100 (1997). The district court was not being asked to
enforce a preempted or otherwise void provision.
   We do not read Mansell and Howell as prohibiting a provi-
sion that permits a court to take into consideration the receipt
of disability benefits when calculating awards in family law.
See Rose v. Rose, 481 U.S. 619, 107 S. Ct. 2029, 95 L. Ed. 2d
599 (1987). The district court had jurisdiction over the request
to modify alimony, and the alimony provision in the Decree
was enforceable and not void. See, Longo v. Longo, supra;
Kramer v. Kramer, supra.
Claim Preclusion: The Special Alimony
Provision Has Become Res Judicata.
   [6-8] Where a state court enters a judgment of divorce
dividing military benefits, and no appeal is taken therefrom,
such division becomes a final order. See Ryan v. Ryan, 257
Neb. 682, 600 N.W.2d 739 (1999). Collateral attacks on
previous proceedings are impermissible unless the attack is
                              - 377 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  314 Nebraska Reports
                        PARISH V. PARISH
                        Cite as 314 Neb. 370

grounded upon the court’s lack of jurisdiction over the par-
ties or subject matter. Spady v. Spady, 284 Neb. 885, 824
N.W.2d 366 (2012). Only a void judgment may be collaterally
attacked. Sanders v. Frakes, 295 Neb. 374, 888 N.W.2d 514
(2016). When considering whether a previous order is void, it
is critical to differentiate between a judgment entered without
jurisdiction and an erroneous judgment that may nevertheless
be enforceable, a distinction we further address below. Foster
v. Foster, 509 Mich. 109, 983 N.W.2d 373 (2022), amended
509 Mich. 988, 974 N.W.2d 185.
   [9] When a divorce decree erroneously divides military
benefits, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the state law of
claim preclusion, also known as res judicata, applies to deter-
mine whether relitigation of the issue may occur. Mansell v.
Mansell, 490 U.S. 581, 586 n.5, 109 S. Ct. 2023, 104 L. Ed.
2d 675 (1989). See Mansell v. Mansell, 498 U.S. 806, 111 S.
Ct. 237, 112 L. Ed. 2d 197 (1990) (denying certiorari after
California Court of Appeals held that decree was immune from
collateral attack under theory of res judicata).
   In this regard, a majority of state courts have permitted the
previously unchallenged division of military benefits to stand
based on application of the state’s doctrine of claim preclu-
sion or res judicata. 2 Brett R. Turner, Equitable Distribution
of Property § 6:9 (4th ed. 2023) (collecting cases). Several
courts examining federal preemption under the USFSPA have
persuasively reasoned, and we agree, that because federal
law does not have the exclusive federal forum for dividing
military benefits in divorce actions, states are not deprived
of subject matter jurisdiction over a divorce involving the
division of military pension property. See Foster v. Foster,
supra (stating no exclusive federal forum under 10 U.S.C.
§ 1408 and 38 U.S.C. § 5301(a)(1) (2018)). See, also, Rose
v. Rose, supra (stating similar veteran’s benefits statute did
not provide for exclusive federal forum and state courts were
not preempted from ordering child support paid from mili-
tary benefits). We agree with the foregoing authorities and
                              - 378 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  314 Nebraska Reports
                        PARISH V. PARISH
                        Cite as 314 Neb. 370

conclude that as the forum, Nebraska jurisprudence regarding
claim preclusion and res judicata applies.
   It has been widely held, and we agree, that if the military
benefits are initially divided by a state court in violation of
federal preemption, but the service member fails to file a
proper appeal, the decision is final and the benefits at issue are
divided in accordance with the initial award. See, e.g., Martin
v. Martin, ___ Nev. ___, 520 P.3d 813 (2022); Foster v. Foster,
supra; Matter of Marriage of Kaufman, 17 Wash. App. 2d 497,
485 P.3d 991 (2021); Shelton v. Shelton, 119 Nev. 492, 78 P.3d
507 (2003); In re Marriage of Mansell, 217 Cal. App. 3d 219,
265 Cal. Rptr. 227 (1989). To the extent this reasoning con-
flicts with our reasoning in Ryan v. Ryan, 257 Neb. 682, 600
N.W.2d 739 (1999), we disapprove of Ryan. Applying prin-
ciples of claim preclusion in the instant case, the initial award
of alimony was directly addressed and resolved in previous
proceedings and may not be relitigated.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Erroneous
Exercise of Jurisdiction Distinguished:
The District Court Was Not Asked
to Divide Disability Benefits
and Had Jurisdiction.
   As an adjunct to his earlier assertion that the alimony pro-
vision is void, which we have rejected, Robert contends: (1)
Kathleen’s request asks the court to divide disability benefits,
(2) the alimony provision is unenforceable, and (3) the dis-
trict court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. In line with these
contentions, the district court found that because of federal
preemption, it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to modify
the award of alimony, which it understood to be a request
to “entertain the division of a VA disability.” The district
court misperceived the nature of the request, and this ruling
was erroneous.
   [10,11] We begin by reciting familiar propositions of sub-
ject matter jurisdiction. Judgments entered without personal
                              - 379 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  314 Nebraska Reports
                        PARISH V. PARISH
                        Cite as 314 Neb. 370

jurisdiction or subject matter jurisdiction are void and subject
to collateral attack. See, Becher v. Becher, 311 Neb. 1, 970
N.W.2d 472 (2022); Young v. Govier & Milone, 286 Neb. 224,
835 N.W.2d 684 (2013). The lack of subject matter jurisdic-
tion can be raised at any time by any party or by the court
sua sponte. Williams v. Williams, 311 Neb. 772, 975 N.W.2d
523 (2022).
   However, we must clarify that lack of subject matter juris-
diction differs from an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction. The
Supreme Court of Michigan recently explained this distinction
in a dissolution proceeding to enforce a judgment that had
divided a veteran’s disability benefits. The court noted that
“[t]he loose practice has grown up . . . of saying that a court
had no ‘jurisdiction’ to take certain legal action when what is
actually meant is that the court had no legal ‘right’ to take the
action . . . .” Foster v. Foster, 509 Mich. 109, 124, 983 N.W.2d
373, 381 (2022) amended 509 Mich. 988, 974 N.W.2d 185. The
Foster court explained that
      “[t]here is a wide difference between a want of jurisdic-
      tion, in which case the court has no power to adjudi-
      cate at all, and a mistake in the exercise of undoubted
      jurisdiction, in which case the action of the trial court is
      not void although it may be subject to direct attack on
      appeal. . . .”
509 Mich. at 125, 983 N.W.2d at 381 (quoting Jackson City
Bank & Trust Co. v. Fredrick, 271 Mich. 538, 260 N.W.
908 (1935)). It has been observed that failing to distinguish
between “the erroneous exercise of jurisdiction” and “the want
of jurisdiction”
      is a fruitful source of confusion and errancy of decision.
      In the first case the errors of the trial court can only be
      corrected by appeal or writ of error. In the last case its
      judgments are void and may be assailed by indirect as
      well as direct attack.
Id. at 124, 949 N.W.2d at 381 (internal quotation marks
omitted).
                              - 380 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  314 Nebraska Reports
                        PARISH V. PARISH
                        Cite as 314 Neb. 370

   In the present case, the district court had subject matter
jurisdiction to adjudicate the initial award of alimony. As
explained above, the alimony provision was not void, and even
if it was erroneous, in the absence of an appeal or finding of
mistake, the alimony provision became final. The alimony
provision did not impermissibly divide disability benefits nor
was it an indemnification to a former spouse for the loss of
the former spouse’s share of military retirement benefits due to
the veteran’s election to separately receive disability benefits.
Robert’s receipt of disability benefits was merely a condition
that permitted the court to reevaluate appropriate alimony.
In the current proceedings, the district court was asked to
consider whether good cause existed to modify the award of
alimony, not to divide disability benefits. The district court did
not lack subject matter jurisdiction to consider a modification
of alimony.
Alimony.
   Kathleen appeals from the order that dismissed her com-
plaint for modification of alimony. As we explained above, the
alimony provision in the Decree did not divide preempted fed-
eral benefits and is properly understood under the customary
Nebraska law of alimony. See Longo v. Longo, 266 Neb. 171,
663 N.W.2d 604 (2003).
   [12] The complaint alleged that since entry of the Decree,
there has been a substantial change in circumstances that war-
rants modification of alimony. The Decree provides in part
as follows:
         P. Special Alimony. [Robert] shall pay as specific
      alimony to [Kathleen] the sum of $1.00 per year begin-
      ning on the first day of the first month following the
      entry of this Decree and each year thereafter for the life
      of either party. This alimony shall not terminate upon
      the remarriage of [Kathleen], but only upon the death
      of either party. This alimony provision shall be subject
      to modification only in the circumstance that there be a
                              - 381 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  314 Nebraska Reports
                        PARISH V. PARISH
                        Cite as 314 Neb. 370

     disability offset against [Robert’s] net disposable, non-
     disability pension and for no other reason.
Nebraska’s statute for the awarding of alimony, Neb. Rev. Stat.
§ 42-365 (2016), provides in part:
        When dissolution of a marriage is decreed, the court
     may order payment of such alimony by one party to the
     other and division of property as may be reasonable, hav-
     ing regard for the circumstances of the parties, duration
     of the marriage, a history of the contributions to the mar-
     riage by each party, including contributions to the care
     and education of the children, and interruption of personal
     careers or educational opportunities, and the ability of the
     supported party to engage in gainful employment without
     interfering with the interests of any minor children in the
     custody of such party.
Section 42-365 also provides the basis for which alimony
awards entered pursuant to a consent decree may be modified
for good cause. “Good cause” means a material and substantial
change in circumstances and depends upon the circumstances
of each case. Grothen v. Grothen, 308 Neb. 28, 952 N.W.2d
650 (2020).
   The award of alimony in this case is a nominal award that
is subject to modification for good cause under the court’s
authority found in § 42-365 and pursuant to the terms of the
Decree. The Decree provides a condition precedent for modifi-
cation of alimony—namely, Robert’s taking a disability offset
against his pension. Contrary to Robert’s assertion, the award
of alimony in this case did not become a property division
or division of his veteran’s disability benefits; the alimony
provision merely anticipates the possibility that circumstances
may change if Robert were to waive some amount of retire-
ment benefits to receive disability benefits. See, Longo v.
Longo, supra; Kramer v. Kramer, 252 Neb. 526, 567 N.W.2d
100 (1997).
   [13] We have previously explained that a trial court may
reserve jurisdiction to award alimony in cases where the
                               - 382 -
          Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                   314 Nebraska Reports
                         PARISH V. PARISH
                         Cite as 314 Neb. 370

service member has not elected nondivisible disability ben-
efits at the time of the dissolution, and the service member
may waive retirement benefits in the future. See Longo v.
Longo, 266 Neb. 171, 663 N.W.2d 604 (2003). See, similarly,
Collins v. Collins, 144 Md. App. 395, 798 A.2d 1155 (2002).
We upheld a provision comparable to that found in the instant
case in Longo. The Longo decree awarded a military spouse
alimony in the sum of $1 per year for life “‘to be modifi-
able only upon [the nonmilitary spouse’s] portion of [the]
military pension being reduced by a portion of said pension
being received as disability.’” 266 Neb. at 180, 663 N.W.2d
at 610-11. In Longo, we applied our holding in Kramer that
allowed benefits exempt from distribution under federal law to
nevertheless be taken into consideration in assessing the rela-
tive financial condition of the parties in a dissolution action. In
Kramer, we stated that
      while a Nebraska court may not include service-connected
      disability benefits awarded to a military retiree as a part
      of a marital estate under Mansell v. Mansell, 490 U.S.
      581, 109 S. Ct. 2023, 104 L. Ed. 2d 675 (1989), it may
      consider such benefits and the corresponding waiver of
      retirement pension benefits required by federal law in
      determining whether there has been a material change
      in circumstances which would justify modification of an
      alimony award to a former spouse . . . .
252 Neb. at 546, 567 N.W.2d at 113. Any question of the
dominion of state courts over alimony was answered by
the U.S. Supreme Court in Howell v. Howell, 581 U.S. 214,
222, 137 S. Ct. 1400, 197 L. Ed. 2d 781 (2017), which stated
that “a family court, when it first determines the value of a
family’s assets, remains free to take account of the contin-
gency that some military retirement pay might be waived,
or . . . take account of reductions in value when it calculates
or recalculates the need for spousal support.” See, similarly,
Rose v. Rose, 481 U.S. 619, 107 S. Ct. 2029, 95 L. Ed. 2d
                             - 383 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  314 Nebraska Reports
                       PARISH V. PARISH
                       Cite as 314 Neb. 370

599 (1987) (stating that veteran’s disability benefits can be
considered in setting child support).
   As in Longo, the Decree in this case required Robert to pay
Kathleen nominal alimony, which could be modified upon a
change in the nature of Robert’s future pension benefits. Such
an award of alimony under state law merely considers how
that award would be affected by future disability or other pre-
empted federal benefits but is not a property division in con-
flict with Mansell v. Mansell, 490 U.S. 581, 109 S. Ct. 2023,
104 L. Ed. 2d 675 (1989), or Howell v. Howell, supra.
   Based on the foregoing, the nominal award of alimony in
this case is subject to modification under § 42-365 and the
terms of the Decree. It is undisputed that there was a dis-
ability offset against Robert’s net disposable, nondisability
pension. The offset to the pension in which Kathleen shares
could justify a modification to the amount of alimony after
comparing the relative economic circumstances of the par-
ties. See Grothen v. Grothen, 308 Neb. 28, 952 N.W.2d 650
(2020). To determine whether there has been a material and
substantial change in circumstances warranting modification
of a divorce decree, a trial court should compare the financial
circumstances of the parties at the time of the divorce decree
with their circumstances at the time the modification at issue
was sought. Id. In contrast to a division of property, the pur-
pose of alimony is to provide for the continued maintenance or
support of one party by the other when the relative economic
circumstances make it appropriate. § 42-365.
   The record before us does not contain sufficient evidence
of the relative current economic circumstances of the par-
ties, and we are unable to resolve the matter of modification
of the award of alimony on appeal. Accordingly, we remand
the cause to the district court for further proceedings con-
sistent with this opinion. On remand, we instruct the district
court to consider Robert’s military disability benefits to the
extent receipt of the benefits affect the relative financial
                              - 384 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  314 Nebraska Reports
                        PARISH V. PARISH
                        Cite as 314 Neb. 370

circumstances of the parties. See Kramer v. Kramer, 252 Neb.
526, 567 N.W.2d 100 (1997).
                         CONCLUSION
   The district court erred as a matter of law when it dismissed
Kathleen’s complaint for modification for lack of subject mat-
ter jurisdiction. We reverse, and remand for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
                                Reversed and remanded for
                                further proceedings.