Paxton v. Paxton, 41617
| Decision Date | 25 October 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 41617,41617 |
| Parties | James L. PAXTON, Jr., Appellee and Cross-Appellant, v. Alice A. PAXTON, Appellant and Cross-Appellee. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Property settlement agreements are governed by section 42-366, R.R.S.1943. They are favored in the law and will not be set aside unless the agreement is unconscionable.
2. A property settlement agreement by the parties to an action for dissolution of marriage will be considered in the light of the economic circumstances of the parties and the evidence at the hearing to decide whether or not it is unconscionable; if it is not found unconscionable it binds both the parties and the court.
3. A property settlement agreement is not unconscionable unless it is shown to be unjust as to one of the parties or obviously excessive in respect to the benefits or burdens on either side.
4. The term "unconscionable" as used in statutes like in section 42-366, R.R.S.1943, has been interpreted as meaning "manifestly unfair or inequitable."
Patrick H. Mullin and Warren C. Schrempp of Schrempp & McQuade, Omaha, for appellant and cross-appellee.
Robert G. Fraser of Fraser, Stryker, Veach, Vaughn, Meusey, Olson & Boyer, P. C., Omaha, for appellee and cross-appellant.
Heard before SPENCER, C. J., Pro Tem., BOSLAUGH, McCOWN, CLINTON, BRODKEY and WHITE, JJ., and KUNS, Retired District Judge.
This is an action for dissolution of marriage. The District Court found the marriage was irretrievably broken and approved a property settlement negotiated by the parties. The respondent wife appeals. She contends the property settlement agreement is unconscionable. We affirm.
The parties were married in 1942. Petitioner, James L. Paxton, Jr., was 68 years old at the time of trial. Alice A. Paxton, the respondent, was 63 years of age. The parties have been separated since 1969, when respondent filed a suit for divorce. Petitioner made support payments of $2,000 per month to the date of the trial.
Petitioner filed this action for dissolution of marriage in October 1976. The record reflects extensive negotiations regarding a settlement and further that petitioner's financial records were made available to respondent. On May 9, 1977, at respondent's request, her counsel obtained leave to withdraw and new counsel entered an appearance for her. Trial was had on May 13, 1977.
At trial it was admitted that petitioner's net worth is in excess of $2 million. The 1976 joint income tax of the parties shows an adjusted gross income of $197,300. Respondent's separate personal property, consisting of savings accounts, stocks and bonds, and jewelry, has a value of approximately $335,000.
Under the terms of the property settlement approved by the District Court, respondent receives all her personal property; the family residence, the value of which is not disclosed in the record; alimony of $2,500 per month until death or remarriage; and a lump sum of $250,000, payable within 10 months, at the rate of $50,000 every 2 months. The agreement further requires petitioner to provide medical, health, and accident insurance for respondent for the rest of her lifetime. He is required to pay the fees of her previous attorney. Respondent agrees that if she predeceases petitioner there will be a provision in her will that the unexpended portion of the $250,000 shall go to a charity of petitioner's choice.
Petitioner was put on the witness stand and the terms of the final property settlement agreement were reviewed with him. Mrs. Paxton, the respondent, was then put on the witness stand and asked if she was present in the courtroom when the two attorneys went over the terms of the property settlement with Mr. Paxton. After an affirmative answer she was asked if she understood those terms, to which she replied affirmatively. The entire settlement agreement was then reviewed with her, specifically as to her receiving $250,000 cash; $2,500 per month for life or until...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jackson v. Jackson
...goal that courts should support rather than undermine. Guyton v. Guyton, 17 Ill.2d 439, 444, 161 N.E.2d 832 (1959); Paxton v. Paxton, 201 Neb. 545, 547, 270 N.W.2d 900 (1978); Viles v. Viles, 14 N.Y.2d 365, 368-69, 251 N.Y.S.2d 672, 200 N.E.2d 567 (1964)(dissenting opinion); Lindey, Separat......
-
Baker v. Baker
...of the financial affairs of estranged marital partners is a goal that courts should support rather than undermine. Paxton v. Paxton, 201 Neb. 545, 547, 270 N.W.2d 900 (1978); Guyton v. Guyton, 17 Ill.2d 439, 444, 161 N.E.2d 832 (1959); Viles v. Viles, 14 N.Y.2d 365, 368-69, 251 N.Y.S.2d 672......
-
Hayes v. Beresford
...of the financial affairs of estranged marital partners is a goal that courts should support rather than undermine. Paxton v. Paxton, 201 Neb. 545, 547, 270 N.W.2d 900 (1978); Guyton v. Guyton, 17 Ill.2d 439, 444, 161 N.E.2d 832 (1959); Viles v. Viles, 14 N.Y.2d 365, 368-69, 251 N.Y.S.2d 672......
-
Dobesh v. Dobesh, 83-478
...If the agreement between the parties is not unconscionable, the agreement binds both the parties and the court. See Paxton v. Paxton, 201 Neb. 545, 270 N.W.2d 900 (1978). If the agreement is unconscionable it is not binding, and the court may make orders for the disposition of the property ......
-
Reconsidering Property Division in Divorce Under Nebraska Law in Light of the Ali's Principles of the Law of Family Dissolution: Analysis and Recommendations
...Ganz, 219 Neb. 432, 436, 363 N.W.2d 526, 436 (1985) (stating that "property settlement agreements are highly favored"); Paxton v. Paxton, 201 Neb. 545, 547, 270 N.W.2d 900, 902 (1978) (stating that property settlement agreements "are favored in the law"); Prochazka v. Prochazka, 198 Neb. 52......