23
assets, alimony, and child support; and (c) she agreed to assume
Stanko's tax liability on the income from the note.
We disagree. First, petitioner did not own any Stanko
Packing stock and has not proven that she was entitled to a one-
half marital interest in its assets. Petitioner's reliance on
Thiltges v. Thiltges, 527 N.W.2d 853 (Neb. 1995), for the
proposition that she was entitled to a one-half marital interest
in the Stanko Packing assets upon dissolution of her marriage is
misplaced. In Thiltges, the Supreme Court of Nebraska stated
that the division of property is not subject to a precise
mathematical formula, that the general rule is to award a spouse
one-third to one-half of the marital estate, and that the
ultimate test in making a division of marital property is
fairness and reasonableness as established by the facts of each
case. Id. at 857-858. Thus, petitioner has not shown that she
was entitled to a one-half marital interest in the Stanko Packing
assets. Second, petitioner testified that Stanko transferred the
note to her because he thought it was fair to give her something
because she was his wife and she had supported him during his
criminal trial. We think a more likely explanation for the
transfer 3 days after his criminal conviction is that Stanko
wanted to keep the property in petitioner's hands and away from
his creditors. Third, petitioner's payment of tax liabilities
arising from the income from the note is not consideration for
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011