S-25-0295 Jennifer Prososki (Appellee) v. Jason Regan (Appellant)
Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County, Judge Tressa M. Alioth
Attorneys: W. Gregory Lake (Plains Legal Group for Appellant), Benjamin M. Belmont and Mariah E. Shaffer (Brodkey, Cuddigan, Peebles, Belmont & Line, LLP for Appellee), and Zachary B. Pohlman (Deputy Solicitor General on behalf of Nebraska Attorney General as amicus curiae).
Civil: Dissolution of marriage
Proceedings below: The district court entered an amended decree of dissolution of marriage that divided and equalized marital assets, determined custody, and ordered Appellant to pay Appellee child support. On its own motion, the Nebraska Supreme Court ordered this case to be transferred from the docket of the Nebraska Court of Appeals to its docket.
Issues: Appellant assigns the following errors: 1) The district court abused its discretion by reducing Appellant’s parenting time below what was ordered in the temporary decree—specifically eliminating midweek overnight visitation—without making any specific findings as to why such a reduction served the minor child’s best interests, in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2923; 2) The district court erred in imputing income to Appellant at rates unsupported by the record and without making a finding that Appellant was voluntarily underemployed, contrary to Neb. Ct. R. § 4-204; 3) The district court failed to clarify its legal custody designation while requiring Appellant to contribute to direct expenses in a manner consistent with a joint custody arrangement, despite awarding sole physical custody to Appellee, in violation of Neb. Ct. R. § 4-212 and § 4-215; 4) The district court failed to consider or make findings regarding joint physical custody, despite uncontroverted evidence that Appellant was a fit, involved parent and that such an arrangement would serve the minor child’s best interests under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2923(6); 5) The district court erred in selecting August 1, 2016, as the date of marital separation, disregarding substantial evidence of the parties’ continued cohabitation, shared finances, parenting, and intimate relationship extending through 2023. This error materially impacted the property division and dissipation findings; 6) The district court abused its discretion in awarding Appellee a $60,000 dissipation credit based on an unsupported allegation of asset waste, introduced for the first time in a pretrial letter, never pled, and unsupported by testimony or exhibits; 7) The district court erred in awarding Appellee $16,616 in equalization based on vague or incomplete property valuation evidence and an inconsistent application of valuation dates, resulting in a windfall to Appellee; 8) The district court abused its discretion by denying Appellant’s request for attorney fees where Appellee engaged in multiple acts of litigation misconduct, including refusing to produce a witness listed on her witness list, twice obtaining continuances over Appellant’s objections, refusing to allow Appellant’s discovery of hearsay statements later used at trial, and introducing a dissipation theory not pled in her complaint; and 9) The combined effect of the above errors—when viewed together—rendered the proceedings fundamentally unfair and reflect a pattern of judicial rulings disproportionately unfavorable to Appellant, warranting reversal or remand for a new trial.
On cross-appeal, Appellee assigns the following error: 1) The trial court erred in failing to include the real estate when equalizing the marital estate.