Marlin G. Springer - Page 26

                                       - 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  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011