Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Paschall v. Paschall

Court of Appeals of Nebraska

July 16, 2013

Jane K. Paschall, appellee and cross-appellant,
v.
David D. Paschall, appellant and cross-appellee.

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PERMANENT PUBLICATION

Appeal from the District Court for Hitchcock County: David Urbom, Judge.

Terrance O. Waite and Monelle M. Beal, of Waite, McWha & Heng, for appellant.

Maurice A. Green, of Green Law Offices, P.C., for appellee.

Inbody, Chief Judge, and Irwin and Moore, Judges.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL

MOORE, JUDGE.

David D. Paschall appeals from the decree of dissolution entered by the district court for Hitchcock County. Jane K. Paschall cross-appeals. At issue in this appeal are the district court's alimony award and property division. For the reasons set forth below, we do not find error in the district court's alimony award. Further, we affirm, as modified, the district court's property division.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

David and Jane were married on August 28, 1977, in North Platte, Nebraska. Two children were born of this marriage, but neither was a minor at the time of trial. On February 17, 2011, Jane filed a complaint for dissolution of marriage, and on March 8, David filed an answer to Jane's complaint. The court entered a temporary order on March 15 which required David to pay Jane alimony in the amount of $800 per month beginning April 1, 2011.

Trial was held on May 3, 2012. The fundamental issues at trial were the amount of alimony due to Jane and the valuations of personal property. Both parties submitted evidence regarding these issues.

Jane was 57 years old at the time of the trial. Although Jane was a stay-at-home mother caring for their children while they were young, she has considerable employment experience. For the past 15 years, Jane has been employed at Southwest Nebraska Physical Therapy as a physical therapy technician. Prior to this position, Jane worked for 3 years at Community Hospital and 9 years at the McCook YMCA.

At the time of trial, David was 58 years old and had spent his entire career working in the oilfields. At the time of these divorce proceedings, David was employed as a "roustabout-working foreman" at a large oil drilling business that operates in the Midwest region. David testified that this type of work involved strenuous physical labor which he claims has caused him to suffer a number of physical ailments, including a wrist injury, partial amputation of a finger, osteoarthritis in his left shoulder and knee, and hearing loss. David testified that because of the physically demanding nature of his job, he is planning to retire at age 62.

The parties submitted a joint property statement into evidence. This statement contained a list of the parties' marital assets which were to be divided by the court. Each party also claimed certain property to be nonmarital property exempt from this division. Although David and Jane jointly prepared this statement, their testimony revealed some disagreement as to the values of various items on the statement.

The district court entered a decree of dissolution on June 1, 2012. The court divided the parties' marital assets and ordered David to pay Jane a $45, 000 equalization payment. David was also ordered to pay $1, 000 per month in alimony for a total of 84 months. The court determined that each party was responsible to pay his or her own attorney fees and costs.

Subsequent to the decree, Jane filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment and David filed a motion for a new trial. In her motion, Jane requested that the court modify the decree to require David to continue to provide her health insurance benefits for 6 months following the entry of the decree. In its June 20, 2012, order, the court granted Jane's motion and partially granted David's motion for new trial. In partially granting David's motion, the court ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.