A-25-302, Thomas Owais-Campbell (Appellant) v. Manal Owais-Campbell
Douglas County, District Court, Judge Tressa M. Alioth
Attorney for Appellant: Kathryn D. Putnam (Astley Putnam, P.C., L.L.O.)
Pro Se Appellee
Civil Action: Dissolution of Marriage
Action Taken by Trial Court: Thomas and Manal were married in 2016 and have two children. During the marriage, Thomas was a self-employed attorney and Manal stayed at home with the children. Manal filed for divorce in November 2021.
Pursuant to temporary orders, the parties were awarded joint legal custody of the children, with Manal having sole physical custody subject Thomas’ parenting time. Thomas was ordered to pay $5,234 per month for temporary child support and $2,000 per month for temporary spousal support. However, when Manal moved from the marital residence in December 2021, Thomas’ temporary spousal support increased to $10,000 per month; it was later suspended on May 1, 2024.
During the divorce proceedings, Thomas pled guilty in federal court to willfully filing a false tax return. In November 2023, he was sentenced to 12 months and 1 day in federal prison. He was also disbarred.
Due to Thomas’ incarceration, a receiver was appointed to assist with the sale of various assets, including numerous properties.
Following trial, the district court entered a decree dissolving the parties’ marriage and maintaining child custody as previously determined. Thomas was ordered to pay Manal $734 per month in child support, retroactive to January 1, 2024; his spousal support obligation was determined to be satisfied as of May 1, 2024. The decree identified, valued, and divided the parties’ property and debts. Thomas was ordered to pay Manal $90,608.59 to equalize the marital estate.
Assignments of Error on Appeal: Thomas assigns that the district court abused its discretion by (1) failing to setoff the proceeds from the sale of his premarital home as his nonmarital property; (2) failing to apportion the appreciation in the marital home attributable to his nonmarital contributions; (3) determining that a $50,000 gift from Manal’s father was a nonmarital gift made only to her; (4) characterizing the loan held by Citizens Bank as Thomas’ nonmarital debt; (5) failing to offset Thomas’ premarital real estate as his nonmarital property; (6) failing to credit Thomas with the reduction of the Citizens Bank loan during the pendency of the proceedings; (7) failing to account for the capital gains tax in the overall division of the assets and debts; (8) its identification and valuation of the marital watch collection and/or failing to account for the same in the payment of the marital tax obligations; (9) allocating the interest, penalties, and fees accrued for the 2021 taxes equally between the parties; (10) failing to retroactively modify alimony and failing to account for the excessive alimony in the overall division of assets and debts; and (11) overruling his motion to disqualify Manal’s counsel and to disgorge the attorneys fees he paid to that counsel.