Bhatia v. Thomas-Bhatia
| Decision Date | 11 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. A-19-1203.,A-19-1203. |
| Parties | SAMEER K. BHATIA, APPELLEE, v. KATHRYN L. THOMAS-BHATIA, APPELLANT. |
| Court | Nebraska Court of Appeals |
(Memorandum Web Opinion)
Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County: DUANE C. DOUGHERTY, Judge. Affirmed in part as modified, and in part reversed and remanded with directions.
Justin A. Quinn for appellant.
Adam E. Astley and Jacquelyn E. Warren, of Astley Putnam, P.C., L.L.O., for appellee.
Kathryn L. Thomas-Bhatia appeals the order of the Douglas County District Court dissolving her marriage to Sameer K. Bhatia. Kathryn contends that the district court erred in various respects including the division of the marital estate; determinations of custody, parenting time, and child support regarding the parties' minor children; failing to award her attorney fees and sufficient alimony; and failing to reduce the judgment for direct expenses under the temporary order to an amount certain in the decree. For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm in part as modified, and in part reverse and remand with directions.
Sameer and Kathryn were married in January 2009. Two children were born during the marriage--Raeva in 2009 and Oren in 2011. In July 2017, Sameer filed a complaint for dissolution of the parties' marriage.
In September 2017, the district court issued a temporary order which awarded the parties joint legal and physical custody; ordered Sameer to pay $1,500 in temporary alimony beginning in November 2017; ordered Sameer to pay temporary child support of $1,532 beginning in November 2017; and ordered Sameer to obtain health coverage for the minor children beginning October 2017 with the uninsured medical expenses allocated to Sameer in the amount of 80 percent and to Kathryn 20 percent, subject to the parties exchanging the Explanation of Benefits (EoB) prior to the parties paying their portion of the children's medical expenses. The court's temporary order provided each party the right of first refusal of the children any time the other party was going to be absent from the children longer than 12 hours. Finally, the temporary order allowed the children to remain in their current extracurricular activities with the cost of the activities incurred beginning in October 2017 to be allocated 80 percent to Sameer and 20 percent to Kathryn; however, if the children started new activities, the parties were required to agree to the child's participation in that activity prior to being obligated to pay for the expenses associated therewith.
The following is a summary of the evidence adduced during the March 2019 trial.
Prior to the parties' marriage, Sameer received a Bachelor's degree in Medicine and a Bachelor's degree in Surgery from a university in India, but was unsuccessful in passing the medical licensing exam in the United States. During the parties' marriage, Sameer completed an MBA program and earned a Master's degree in Science, Business Intelligence, and Analytics. Sameer then worked at various businesses including Prairie Ventures as a managing director; Corporate Ventures doing marketing and sales; and Cerner as a physician executive on the business development team. Kathryn testified that, as part of Sameer's job requirements with Cerner, Sameer traveled up to 60 percent of the time. In June 2009, Sameer started a business called Guru Instruments, LLC, a business entity formed in association with a medical device he invented.
During the parties' marriage, Kathryn pursued an MBA and has maintained employment as a teacher with Omaha Public Schools (OPS). Kathryn also receives approximately $10,000 in annual income from her mother's business, General Media.
After the parties' marriage, they moved into Kathryn's premarital home in Omaha, referred to as the Bedford home. The parties generally testified about property and debts acquired and paid both prior to, and during, the marriage. Specific testimony will be discussed as relevant to the assignment of error associated with the court's property division.
Sameer testified that when both he and Kathryn were at home with the children, they shared equally in caring for their children. In connection therewith, Sameer testified that he was normally responsible for getting the children ready in the morning.
Both parties testified that their relationship was plagued with communication problems. For example, Sameer testified that his children participated in a violin program which provided violins for the children's use and, although the program was scheduled only during his parenting time, Kathryn refused to let Sameer keep the violins at his house. This caused the children to have to wait to begin class until Kathryn brought their violins to them. Sameer testified that Kathryn also held the children's Taekwondo helmets and expensive dance costumes and would not provide them until she arrived at the respective event.
From Sameer's perspective, Kathryn's behaviors were exemplified during the litigation discovery process. Sameer explained that Kathryn would ask for a set of documents and then allege a deficiency that was outside the scope of the original request. Kathryn also requested the same information, three to five times, using different words and then claimed Sameer did not produce the requested documents.
Although Kathryn agreed that the parties had communication problems, she provided a different perspective regarding those problems. She testified that during one argument, Sameer threatened to post photos online that he took of her in various stages of undress without her knowledge. Kathryn further testified that Sameer refused to cooperate with her giving several examples. Kathryn explained that Sameer insisted that coordination of the children's activities and other issues be handled through their attorneys which increased their attorney fees. As another example, Kathryn testified that on Mother's Day, although Sameer offered to provide time for Kathryn to see the children, he rejected her requested time and told her she must accept whatever time worked for him.
Kathryn testified that during discovery, she provided Sameer with a list of items she had removed from the home. Sameer returned the list indicating the value of the items listed had increased to make it appear that the items she took had a higher value and "he wasn't following the garage sale policy." Kathryn testified Sameer had violated the court's temporary order because, rather than offering her the right of first refusal when he was out of town during his parenting time, Sameer allowed his mother to take the parties' children to Kids Club. Kathryn also testified that although the temporary order required Sameer to provide insurance for the children, Sameer failed to provide Kathryn with the insurance cards for approximately 6 months and refused to provide EoB information to her.
Kathryn testified that the temporary order stated the children could continue participating in their current activities and the parties would share the cost of these activities based on the district court's allocation. However, Kathryn explained that after Raeva had finished her dance class and progressed into another class in the same dance activity, Sameer refused to take Raeva to her dance class and refused to pay his share of the associated costs arguing his daughter was participating in a different dance group.
In September 2019, the district court entered the dissolution decree awarding the parties joint legal and physical custody of the children. After finding that Sameer's monthly income was $18,016 and Kathryn's monthly income was $5,420, the court ordered Sameer to pay monthly child support of $1,035 for both children. The court also ordered the parties to equally divide costs associated with caring for the children, including health care and direct child-related costs, butordered that each party pay for all everyday clothing to be used by the children in their households. The court ordered each party to be responsible for the costs associated with the extracurricular activities for which that party signed up the children.
The district court entered a parenting plan which the court found was in the best interests of the children. Among other things, the parenting plan granted each parent essentially the same amount of regular parenting time with the children and set forth the schedule of holidays to be observed. Specifically, Halloween was awarded to Sameer on odd years and Kathryn on even years from 3:30 to 9 p.m. In calculating income and support, the court used worksheet 1 and found Sameer's percentage to be 73.52 percent and Kathryn's to be 26.48 percent, but on worksheet 3, joint physical custody, the court found the parties' percentages to be 50 percent based upon the amount of time each parent had physical custody of the children.
The court's decree also distributed the marital estate in the following manner: (1) Sameer was awarded the marital home, known as Lockwood Lane, valued at $333,000 along with the $288,038 in associated debt; (2) Kathryn was awarded her premarital home, known as the Bedford home, subject to a $15,860 marital equity reduction; (3) both parties were awarded the personal property in their possession due to the court finding both parties' personal property exhibits lacked credibility and that the value of the items in each parties' possession were of almost equivalent value; (4) Kathryn was awarded half of the shares in Sameer's Cerner Employee Stock Plan Account as of September 30, 2017; (5) the court awarded no monetary value to the parties' jewelry because the court did not receive documentary evidence concerning value, but...
To continue reading
Request your trial