A-16-1201, Claire C. Holen (cross-appellant) v. Erik T. Holen (appellant)
Phelps County, District Judge Terri S. Harder
Attorney for Appellant: Kent A. Schroeder (Ross, Schroeder & George, LLC)
Attorney for Appellee: Jane F. Langan Mach (Rembolt Ludtke LLP)
Civil Action: Dissolution of Marriage with Child Custody
Action Taken by Trial Court: The parties’ marriage was dissolved, and their property divided; among the assets awarded to Erik was an “option to purchase” land valued at over $1,000,000. The parties were awarded joint legal custody of their children, with physical custody granted to Claire subject to Erik’s right of parenting time. Child support was awarded, tax exemptions allocated, and Erik was ordered to provide health insurance. Erik appeals and Claire cross-appeals.
Assignments of Error on Appeal: Erik assigns that the district court erred in (1) failing to award joint physical custody to both parties or in the alternative to adopt Dr. Meidlinger’s recommended visitation plan; (2) failing to award Erik the right of first refusal for day care; (3) the determination of Claire’s earning capacity; (4) failing to annualize the child support obligation; (5) failing to require Claire to account for $23,373.42 removed from an account funded by a line of credit after the court-ordered date of valuation; (6) ordering Erik to pay an equalization payment of $160,580 to Claire; (7) failing to order Claire to pay an equalization payment of $209,171.50 to Erik; (8) finding that “[Erik’s] position was ‘that the option had no value due to events that transpired after the date of valuation’”; (9) by adopting Claire’s expert’s opinion as to the value of the unexercised option to purchase real estate; (10) making findings of fact and conclusions of law with regard to the lease agreement and its termination when the court did not have personal or subject matter jurisdiction with regard to the lease and all of the parties thereto; (11) awarding the option to purchase to Erik instead of Claire; (12) placing any value on the option to purchase because it was a hypothetical asset; (13) not ordering both parties to provide, maintain, and pay for health insurance coverage if available through an employer; and (14) determining Erik violated the non-hypothecation order regarding the lease agreement with option to purchase.
On cross-appeal, Claire assigns that the district court erred in (1) not averaging Erik’s income for purposes of child support and alimony; (2) capping Erik’s reimbursement for daycare and medical expenses at $113/month; and (3) failing to award her attorney fees.