Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

232 Neb. 805

442 N.W.2d 386

Shada v. Shada

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided July 14, 1989

Nebraska Supreme Court · decided 1989-07-14

Cited by 10 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 1999

8 state decisions

Applies NE 42 § 42-367

Relies on State v. Antillon · Ritchie v. Ritchie · Decker v. Decker

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1989-07-14

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1 In this marriage dissolution action, Ardis M. Shada *806 primarily appeals the division of property and the amount of alimony awarded her after 35 years of marriage. Appellant also complains that the trial court abused its discretion in not awarding her $30,000 for attorney fees, expert fees, and costs incurred in this and the trial court. We affirm the trial court.

¶2 As required in cases of this nature, we have reviewed the record de novo to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in dividing the property of the parties and in awarding alimony. Strong v. Strong, ante p. 25, 439 N.W.2d 90 (1989); Decker v. Decker, 229 Neb. 347, 426 N.W.2d 533 (1988). The awarding of attorney fees and costs are matters within the trial court’s discretion. Ritchie v. Ritchie, 226 Neb. 623, 413 N.W.2d 635 (1987). See, also, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-367 (Reissue 1988).

¶3 We determine that there was no abuse of discretion by the trial court with respect to the issues raised. Accordingly, the decree of the trial court is affirmed. Appellant’s request for attorney fees in this court is denied.

¶4 Affirmed.

/232/neb/805 · .json · Public domain