My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
200305844
LFImages
>
Deeds
>
Deeds By Year
>
2003
>
200305844
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/15/2011 10:29:50 PM
Creation date
10/21/2005 5:33:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DEEDS
Inst Number
200305844
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
200305844 <br />petitioner's employer and provide a copy to the Clerk of the District Court and to the respondent. <br />6. Each patty shall continue to have full and equal access to the education and medical <br />records of the minor child. <br />7. Either party may make emergency decisions affecting the health or safety of the minor <br />child while the child is in the physical custody of such parent. <br />8. Both patties are claiming credit for assets brought into the marriage or gifts or inheritances <br />received during the marriage. Petitioner claims as his separate property Kl through K3. The <br />evidence shows that at the time of marriage there was a Central Bank Certificate of Deposit in the <br />amount of $13,000. Petitioner claims it then went into Commercial Federal and was distributed out <br />of there as the Kemper IRA, Accutrade Stocks, and United Nebraska Bank. Petitioner claims that <br />respondent never used these accounts or had access to these accounts. He is unaware how her name <br />got on these accounts. However, later in his testimony he indicated that when the money was in the <br />Commercial Federal Account, that he also used it to deposit his payroll checks and pay family bills. <br />It is undisputed that respondent also received substantial gifts or inheritances during the <br />marriage. She also admitted that the money from her mother's estate was used to pay bills and was <br />not in any identifiable form at the present time. Some jewelry was received from her mother's estate <br />and that jewelry either still exists or was liquidated and used for general family purposes. <br />In Rezac vs. Rezac, 221 Neb. 516 (1985), the Supreme Court stated: <br />Although some courts find a justifiable reason for limited tracing of <br />prior owned property, it is not error to restrict the credit to the <br />identical property which is retained during the marriage or to the <br />value of the property at the time of the marriage or when disposed of <br />during the marriage. In Preston vs. Preston, 241 Neb. 181 (1992), the <br />Court stated that if an inheritance can be identified, it is to be set off <br />to the inheriting spouse and eliminated from the marital estate to be <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.