A-23-395, Taress Meier (Appellant) v. Steven Meier
Douglas County, District Court, Judge Peter C. Bataillon
Attorney for Appellant: Adam R. Little (Nebraska Legal Group)
Attorneys for Appellee: Haley L. Cannon and Brent M. Kuhn (Brent Kuhn Law)
Civil Action: Dissolution of Marriage
Action Taken by Trial Court: During the divorce proceedings, Taress, Steven, and counsel for both parties met to negotiate a settlement agreement. Taress subsequently filed a “Motion to Enter Decree,” alleging that the parties had reached an agreement as to all terms in the parenting plan, and as to all values of the marital estate except for the specific value of the parties’ home, but that the parties had agreed to accept the appraisal value for the home. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court overruled Taress’ motion, finding that there had not been a meeting of the minds as to all material elements, and thus no enforceable settlement agreement.
The matter proceeded to trial, after which the district court dissolved the parties’ marriage, awarded joint legal and physical custody, ordered child support, and divided the parties’ property and debts; Steven was to pay Taress a property equalization payment of $42,020.94. As relevant to this appeal, the court found that Steven’s 25 percent interest in a business was marital in nature, that one loan of $24,000 was premarital and not included as marital debt, but that $39,350 owed to Steven’s mother and stepfather was a marital debt and each party was obligated to pay one-half of that debt. The court also awarded Steven the entirety of his interest in the business and all value or liability associated with it as his separate property.
Assignments of Error on Appeal: Taress assigns that the district court erred by (1) failing to enforce a valid oral settlement agreement, (2) improperly classifying a nonmarital debt as marital, (3) assigning a personal debt as marital where there is no obligation to repay, (4) improperly valuing marital property, and (5) admitting exhibit 49 (business documentation) despite objections on foundation and hearsay grounds.