- 30 -
settlement of the Bartling Lawsuit”, a “tort suit,” and
the payments in issue “are simply the periodic payment of
a damage award” that could be enforced against petitioner
by Ms. Wagner's heirs.
Unlike respondent, we do not believe that any
provision of the Annulment Agreement or the Decree of
Annulment requires petitioner to continue making the
monthly payments under paragraph 1.f) of the Agreement
after Ms. Wagner’s death. As to the first and second
points raised by respondent, we do not agree that the
"binding agreement" provision or the “no modification”
provision of the Annulment Agreement can be read so broadly
as to require the payments to continue after Ms. Wagner's
death or to constitute an agreement of the parties that the
alimony order will not terminate on Ms. Wagner's death, as
otherwise required by Neb. Rev. Stat. section 42-365.
We also disagree with respondent’s third point, that
the Annulment Agreement is a settlement of the Bartling
lawsuit, a tort action, and the payments in issue are
periodic payments of a damage award that could be enforced
by Ms. Wagner’s heirs. While we agree that the Bartling
lawsuit was settled in the Annulment Agreement, we do not
agree that it was necessarily a tort action or that the
subject payments relate to an award of damages.
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011