Court Opinion

ID: 9739840
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:22:09.716711+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:14.215918
License: Public Domain

Caporale, J.,
dissenting.
I dissent. The record as presented to us demonstrates not only that the alimony awarded by the district court to Mrs. Gleason is excessive but that there is no basis for awarding any alimony to her.
The record is silent on the question of Mrs. Gleason’s earnings. Essex v. Essex, 195 Neb. 385, 238 N.W.2d 235 (1976), states that support is one of the primary reasons for awarding alimony and holds that it is not error to deny alimony in the absence of a showing of need. How can Mrs. Gleason’s need for alimony be determined in the absence of proof of that fact? Did Mrs. Gleason deliberately not prove her earnings because she would thereby establish a lack of need?
Whatever the reasons for the state of the record and whatever the answers to the foregoing questions, we cannot “review de novo on the record” what the record does not contain.
Moreover, how on earth can Mrs. Gleason be entitled to an attorney fee in this court for losing half of the alimony she had before she was brought here?
I would affirm in part and in part reverse with the direction that the judgment with respect to alimony be vacated and no alimony be awarded.
Krivosha, C. J., joins in this dissent.