Jensen v. Jensen

6 Citing cases

  1. Paschall v. Paschall

    No. A-12-668 (Neb. Ct. App. Jul. 16, 2013)   Cited 1 times

    When reviewing an alimony award, an appellate court does not determine whether it would have awarded the same amount of alimony as did the trial court, but considers whether the trial court's award is untenable such as to deprive a party of a substantial right or just result. Jensen v. Jensen, 20 Neb. App. 167, 820 N.W.2d 309 (2012). Our review of the facts in this case in light of the factors involved in an alimony award leads us to conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it awarded Jane alimony in the amount of $800 per month.

  2. Hartwig v. Hartwig

    No. A-17-422 (Neb. Ct. App. Jun. 19, 2018)

    In one case, for example, where the length of the marriage was 26 years and the income of the parties was fairly similar to the present case, alimony of $1,500 per month was awarded for a term of 149 months. See Jensen v. Jensen, 20 Neb. App. 167, 820 N.W.2d 309 (2012). Kelly claims that given "such drastically different results, it is difficult to reconcile how the instant case is anything but an abuse of discretion."

  3. Lagerstrom v. Neal

    No. A-14-210 (Neb. Ct. App. Mar. 17, 2015)

    In reviewing an alimony award, an appellate court does not determine whether it would have awarded the same amount of alimony as did the trial court, but whether the trial court's award is untenable such as to deprive a party of a substantial right or just result. Bussell v. Bussell, supra, citing Jensen v. Jensen, 20 Neb. App. 167, 820 N.W.2d 309 (2012). Tom and Teresa's marriage was one of long duration.

  4. Deterding v. Deterding

    No. A-13-892 (Neb. Ct. App. Jun. 17, 2014)

    ANALYSISIn dividing property and considering alimony upon a dissolution of marriage, a court should consider four factors: (1) the circumstances of the parties, (2) the duration of the marriage, (3) the history of contributions to the marriage, and (4) the ability of the supporting party to engage in gainful employment without interfering with the interests of any minor children in the custody of each party. Jensen v. Jensen, 20 Neb. App. 167, 820 N.W.2d 309 (2012). In reviewing an alimony award, an appellate court does not determine whether it would have awarded the same amount of alimony as did the trial court, but whether the trial court's award is untenable such as to deprive a party of a substantial right or just result.

  5. Bussell v. Bussell

    21 Neb. App. 280 (Neb. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 16 times

    The court awarded Sheri alimony of $1,500 per month for 96 months, which is 8 years. In dividing property and considering alimony upon a dissolution of marriage, a court should consider four factors: (1) the circumstances of the parties, (2) the duration of the marriage, (3) the history of contributions to the marriage, and (4) the ability of the supported party to engage in gainful employment without interfering with the interests of any minor children in the custody of each party. Jensen v. Jensen, 20 Neb.App. 167, 820 N.W.2d 309 (2012). In reviewing an alimony award, an appellate court does not determine whether it would have awarded the same amount of alimony as did the trial court, but whether the trial court's award is untenable such as to deprive a party of a substantial right or just result.

  6. Gerritsen v. Gerritsen

    No. A-12-353 (Neb. Ct. App. May. 28, 2013)

    STANDARD OF REVIEWIn an action for the dissolution of marriage, an appellate court reviews de novo on the record the trial court's determinations of custody, child support, property division, alimony, and attorney fees; these determinations, however, are initially entrusted to the trial court's discretion and will normally be affirmed absent an abuse of that discretion. Jensen v. Jensen, 20 Neb. App. 167, 820 N.W.2d 309 (2012). ANALYSIS