A-16-453, Dena M. Araujo (appellant) v. David R. Araujo
Sarpy County, District Judge William Zastera
Attorney for Appellant: Christopher Perrone (Perrone Law)
Attorneys for Appellee: Edith T. Peebles and Tosha Rae D. Heavican (Brodkey, Peebles, Belmont & Line, LLP)
Civil Action: Divorce, Division of Marital Estate, Child Custody, Child Support
Action Taken by Trial Court: The district court dissolve the marriage. In the decree, child custody was awarded to Dena subject to David’s therapeutic and supervised visitation. Child support was set at $1,535 per month and Dena was awarded the family home and a portion of David’s military pension.
Assignments of Error on Appeal: Dena assign that that the district court erred by (1) awarding David visitation; (2) not prohibiting the Doxey family from having contact with the minor children of the parties; (3) incorrectly calculating the child support to be paid by David to Dena; (4) not giving Dena full credit for the arrears pursuant to the temporary order; (5) miscalculating the equity in the marital residence and using this incorrect information in its division of the marital debts and assets; (6) by miscalculating the division of household goods and including gifts and using this incorrect information in its division of the marital debts and assets; (7) including the $4,500 SAC Loan 3 as a marital debt and using this incorrect information in its division of the marital debts and assets; (8) wrongly determining that the 2012 tax debt was a marital debt and using this incorrect information in its division of the marital debts and assets; (9) not finding David in contempt or making any ruling at all regarding the contempt actions filed by Dena in this case which were heard in conjunction with the dissolution action by agreement of the parties and the court; (10) not including standard provisions into the decree which would protect Dena’s interests in her portion of David’s military retirement; (11) not ordering David to pay any alimony to Dena; and (12) not equitably dividing the GAL fees or ordering Dena to pay any such expenses and by not ordering David to pay any portion of Dena’s attorneys’ fees.