A-24-0844 Shawn P. Pebley v. Laci D. Pebley
Lancaster County, District Court, Judge Lori A. Maret
Attorney for Appellant/Cross-Appellee: John W. Ballew, Jr. (Ballew Hazen Byrd, PC, LLO)
Attorneys for Appellee/Cross-Appellant: Terrance A. Poppe, Megan E. McDowell (Morrow, Poppe, Watermeier & Lonowski, PC, LLO)
Civil Action: Dissolution of Marriage
Action Taken by Trial Court: The district court dissolved the parties’ marriage, awarded them joint legal and physical custody of their children, valued and divided the marital estate, and ordered Appellant/Cross-Appellee to make an equalization payment of $643,789.50 within 60 days.
Assignments of Error on Appeal: Appellant/Cross-Appellee assigns that because of continual disagreements concerning parenting functions between the parties and Appellee/Cross-Appellant’s behaviors prior to and after the divorce filing, the district court erred in not determining Appellant/Cross-Appellee should have final say in disputed decisions involving parenting functions, that the district court erred in failing to treat the premarital rental real estate as a single collective self-sustaining asset similar to a cow herd and provide an appropriate credit to Appellant/Cross-Appellee, that the district court erred in failing to credit Appellant/Cross-Appellee for the value of his premarital rental properties and other assets in determining an equitable division of the marital estate, that the district court erred in ordering Appellant/Cross-Appellee to make a money judgement in the amount of $643,789.50 to Appellee/Cross-Appellant within 60 days of entry of the decree of dissolution of marriage, and that the district court erred in failing to set off to Appellant/Cross-Appellee his monetary gifts and inheritances which Appellee/Cross-Appellant did not dispute.
Appellee/Cross-Appellant assigns that the district court erred in not awarding Appellee/Cross-Appellant either sole legal custody or final say for decisions regarding the minor children’s education, religion, and medical needs despite the undisputed communication issues between the parties, Appellant/Cross-Appellee’s inappropriate attempts to exert control in decisionmaking during the pendency of the matter, and Appellee/Cross-Appellant being the primary caretaker of the children prior to the date of filing, erred in assigning valuation dates that were inconsistent and not rationally related including valuing similar assets at different dates, specifically including bank accounts, Appellee/Cross-Appellant’s NPERS account, and the end date for valuation of Appellant/Cross-Appellee’s military retirement account, and in not including assets dissipated by the Appellant/Cross-Appellee in the marital estate, and erred in classifying the Voluntary Separation Pay debt as a marital debt and assigning Appellee/Cross-Appellant responsibility for 50% of the repayment of the same when the contract was entered into prior to the marriage, Appellant/Cross-Appellee had complete control over the distribution of those funds, and there were limited funds used for purposes of the marriage.