- 30 -
gross. See Ball v. Ball, supra at 300. The language of the
divorce documents does not reflect that the payments were
intended to be part of a definite sum payable and, as discussed
previously, we believe that the liability to make the payments
was subject to the contingency of the death of Ms. Springer. Nor
do we believe that the fact that the annual payments were not
modifiable means that the payments were alimony in gross.
Indeed, in Kingery v. Kingery, supra, the nonmodifiable
provisions did not prevent application of Neb. Rev. Stat. section
42-365. Finally, in Ball v. Ball, supra at 300, the court stated
that alimony in gross must incorporate “each and every one” of
the requirements that the award be for a definite sum (or for
installments payable over a definite period of time), be payable
in full regardless of the death or remarriage of the payee
spouse, and not terminate on the death of the payor spouse. The
divorce documents in this case lack the specific requirement that
the annual payments be payable in full regardless of the death of
the payee spouse, Ms. Springer.
We also note that the passage in Ball v. Ball, supra at 300,
relied on by respondent expressly describes alimony (as
distinguished from alimony in gross) as “an allowance for support
and maintenance”. As discussed earlier, the divorce documents
stated that the annual payments were for the “support and
maintenance” of Ms. Springer. The use of this phrase in the
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