- 26 -
viable. Applying Watters would in effect add language to the
agreement providing that Ms. Springer’s death would not cause
termination even though the structure of the agreement indicates
the opposite. If there is any doubt about the intent of the
divorce documents, there is clearly no basis to have Neb. Rev.
Stat. section 42-365 operate to provide a result that is directly
opposite to that implied in the agreement and contrary to the
result the Nebraska statute would provide in the absence of an
agreement of the parties on this point.
Finally, review of the entire marital settlement indicates
that petitioner and Ms. Springer attempted to provide a
reasonable division of the marital estate. Other provisions of
the marital settlement and the divorce decree specifically
provided for child support payments and the division of assets
and liabilities (e.g., motor vehicles, real estate, bank
accounts, business and investment items, retirement benefits and
plans, personal property, and life insurance items) between
petitioner and Ms. Springer. Additionally, article 16 of the
marital settlement specifically provided for lump-sum payments to
be made by petitioner to Ms. Springer “as additional property to
equalize property distribution.” We are not concerned in this
case, as it appears the court was in Watters v. Foreman, supra,
that one spouse received considerably less than a fair and
equitable division of the marital estate, and that payments
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011