Wulf v. Wulf
| Decision Date | 06 July 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. A-09-889.,A-09-889. |
| Parties | Renee A. Wulf, appellee and cross-appellant, v. Todd R. Wulf, appellant and cross-appellee. |
| Court | Nebraska Court of Appeals |
Ari D. Riekes and Harold M. Zabin, of Marks, Clare & Richards, L.L.C., for appellant.
Bradley D. Holtorf, of Sidner, Svoboda, Schilke, Thomsen, Holtorf, Boggy, Nick & Placek, for appellee.
Appeal from the District Court for Washington County: Darvid D. Quist, Judge. Affirmed as modified.
The marriage of Todd R. Wulf and Renee A. Wulf was dissolved by a decree of the district court for Washington County. Todd appeals, and Renee cross-appeals. For the reasons set forth herein, we modify the decree.
Todd and Renee were married on November 27, 1982. During the marriage three children were born, only one of whom was still a minor at the time of the divorce proceedings. Both parties worked throughout the marriage. Renee has worked for an appraisal company and a real estate company since 1997, and Todd has worked as a welder for a concrete company since 1994. In addition, both parties are involved in other ventures. Todd has been involved in a family farming operation, Wulf & Sons, with his father and brother since 1981--although there is not a written agreement regarding the operation, and the evidentiary record about how this operation functions is a bit hazy. Renee has several nonmarital business investments which apparently involve real estate. More facts will be provided as necessary in the analysis.
Renee filed her complaint for dissolution of marriage on November 7, 2006. In her complaint, Renee sought (1) an equitable distribution of the marital property and debt; (2) custody of the parties' minor child; and (3) child support. Todd filed his answer on November 17. In his answer, Todd alleged that it would be in the minor child's best interests for the parties to have joint legal custody.
The district court filed its temporary order on December 5, 2006, ordering (1) that Todd pay child support in the amount of $490 per month; (2) that Todd have reasonable visitations with the minor child to be exercised every other weekend commencing Friday at 6 p.m. and concluding Sunday at 6 p.m.; and (3) that "during the pendency of this proceeding, each party shall be responsible for maintaining the minimum credit card payments on any credit card indebtedness incurred by the party prior to the filing of this action."
Trial was held on August 19, 2008. On September 8, Todd filed an "amended motion to withdraw rest and reopen discovery and introduce additional evidence," which was granted by the district court. Trial continued on February 19, 2009.
The decree of dissolution was filed on June 1, 2009. In its decree, the trial court awarded Renee custody of the minor child, subject to Todd's reasonable rights of visitation as set forth in the decree. Todd was ordered to pay child support in the amount of $606.18 per month. The income tax exemption for the minor child was to be alternated between the parties, with 2009 awarded to Renee.
The district court distributed the parties' marital assets. Todd was awarded the following: the 1994 pickup, subject to a payment of $2,000 to Renee; the 1988 Suburban; his life insurance at the value shown on exhibit 1 of $6,122.78; any and all interest in the real estate, farm machinery, and farming operation; and the balance of the funds in his Tax Deferred Income Plan through Oshkosh Truck Corporation, after an award of $19,308.47 from said plan to Renee pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) and subject to any outstanding loans against said plan. Renee was awarded the following: the 2001 Pontiac, subject to a $2,500 debt; the 1996 Chrysler; all interest in her Vanguard Simple IRA valued at $13,134.17; $10,709.48 for her one-half interest in the 2006 harvested crops; $30,576.67 for her one-half interest in the improvements to the real estate; $7,950 for her one-half interest in the farm equipment; $1,900 for her one-half interest in the grain bins and hay shed; and $19,308.47 from Todd's Tax Deferred Income Plan through Oshkosh Truck Corporation pursuant to a QDRO.
The district court also allocated the parties' marital debt. The district court found that at the time of trial, the remaining credit card debt was $57,123.23. The district court ordered that each party pay one-half, $28,561.62, of such credit card debt. Renee was ordered to pay any balances due Two Rivers State Bank on the $45,000 loan obligation she separately incurred. Todd was ordered to pay the remaining balance of $62,641 on the home improvement loan to Two Rivers State Bank.
The district court summarized the cash portion of its property division as follows:
"[Renee] should receive an award of $81,537.60 to equalize the property division. $28,531.62 of this amount is credit card debt; if the parties agree, each can pay one-half (1/2) of the total remaining balance through regular payments to the credit card
providers." The district court then ordered Todd to pay Renee a lump sum property settlement in the amount of $81,537.00 "on or before the date of the entry of the Decree for Dissolution of Marriage."
We set forth the following calculation to illustrate our understanding of the breakdown of the district court's equalization payment:
Payment
to Renee
Reason
$ 2, 000.00
nonmarital contribution to 1994 pickup
10, 709.48
one-half of the 2006 crops
30, 576.67
one-half payments made for home improvements
7, 950.00
one-half of the farm equipment
1, 900.00
one-half of the grain bins and hay shed
28, 561.62
one-half of the credit card debt
Todd alleges that the district court erred in (1) dividing the parties' marital estate, (2) awarding Renee an interest in the residence where the parties lived and in awarding her value for improvements made to the residence, (3) allocating the parties' marital credit card debt, (4) allocating the tax exemption for the minor child, (5) valuing and allocating the 2006 harvested farm crops, and (6) valuing and allocating grain bins and the hay shed.
On cross-appeal, Renee alleges that the district court erred in (1) subtracting farm expenses of $46,192 incurred for the 2007 crop against the 2006 grain proceeds, (2) determining the valuation of the farm equipment, (3) failing to order Todd to be responsible for one-half of the credit card minimum payments made by Renee during the pendency of this proceeding "and additional debt incurred by Renee to sustain the family," (4) failing to award Renee certain personal property/household goods remaining in the family home, and (5) failing to require Todd to maintain health insurance on Renee for 6 months following the entry of the decree.
In an action for the dissolution of marriage, an appellate court reviews de novo on the record the trial court's determinations of custody, child support, property division, alimony, and attorney fees; these determinations, however, are initially entrusted to the trial court's discretion and will normally be affirmed absent an abuse of that discretion. Reed v. Reed, 277 Neb. 391, 763 N.W.2d 686 (2009).
We begin with the basic rule for property division as articulated by the Nebraska Supreme Court in Healdv. Heald, 259 Neb. 604, 612, 611 N.W.2d 598, 605 (2000):
Equitable property division under § 42-365 is a three-step process. The first step is to classify the parties' property as marital or nonmarital. The second step is to value the marital assets and marital liabilities of the parties. The third step is to calculate and divide the net marital estate between the parties in accordance with the principles contained in § 42-365.
During all of the marriage, Todd and Renee lived in a farmhouse rent free that was located on land that neither of them owned. At the time of the parties' marriage, the residence was owned by Todd's grandfather. When his grandfather passed away, the title went to Todd's grandmother, and when she passed away, ownership went to Todd's mother.
In 2001, Todd and Renee made substantial improvements to the farmhouse, including adding a full kitchen, adding a laundry room, remodeling the master bathroom, adding a new bathroom, installing a new air conditioner, electrical and plumbing work, purchasing new appliances, installing tile, painting, and landscaping. The total cost of such improvements was $123,794.34. To pay for the improvements, Todd and Renee took out a bank loan for $76,000. The balance of the cost was paid in cash--from bonds and Todd's life insurance policies. At the time of trial, the improvement loan balance was $62,641.34, which the trial court ordered Todd to pay.
In the process of dividing the marital estate, the district court addressed the residence and improvements as follows:
16. Improvements to Real Estate. The Court agrees with the statement in [Renee's] brief that this issue constituted a challenge. The facts do not appear to fit squarely within any of the Appellate Court decisions on this issue. However, in fairness and equity, [Renee] should receive some value due to the fact that the debt was paid down during the course of the marriage with marital funds. $108,794.34 plus $15,000.00 appliances. Total $123,794.34. Remaining debt $62,641.00 = $61,153.00 divided by 2 = $30,576.67. Accordingly, [Renee] is to be awarded the sum of $30,576.67 for improvements to the real estate.
Todd argues that the district court erred in awarding Renee an interest in the residence and in awarding her value for improvements made to the residence because such residence was owned by his mother and...
To continue reading
Request your trial