In re Marriage of Nelson

Full Case Summary

Case Summary: In re Marriage of Brian Nelson

Background

This case involves the dissolution of a 20-year marriage between Brian and Lindsay Nelson, who share three children: Madison (2006), Chase (2009), and Hudson (2011). Brian filed for dissolution on July 20, 2022, seeking equal parenting time and equitable division of assets, with Lindsay countering for sole custody due to domestic violence allegations. The proceedings involved extensive trial testimony over nine days.

Key Findings

• The trial court's allocation of parenting time was upheld, with Lindsay awarded the majority.
• Brian's denial of a share in Lindsay's pension was deemed an abuse of discretion.
• The division of other marital assets and debts was confirmed as reasonable.
• No dissipation of assets was established.
• Child support and maintenance allocations were upheld as reasonable.

Temporary Support and Maintenance

The trial court ordered Brian to provide temporary child support of $2,347 per month, retroactive to July 20, 2022, along with maintenance of $2,904.66 per month. Lindsay's income was noted to be $2,904 monthly, while Brian's was approximately $14,050, contributing to the maintenance calculations.

Dissipation Claims

Brian filed a claim of dissipation, asserting Lindsay allowed the marital home to deteriorate, particularly concerning pool maintenance, which was found insufficiently supported. The court ruled that Lindsay was not responsible for maintenance during Brian's absence from the residence.

Asset Division

Marital assets were valued at $70,300, with the court allocating $39,057.86 to Lindsay and $5,806.86 to Brian. The division included a 50% share of Brian’s pensions and an equal split of funds from the marital residence sale after adjusting for respective debts and contributions.

Parenting Time and Decision-Making

The court awarded Lindsay sole decision-making responsibilities for the children’s education and well-being, based on witnessed incidents of Brian's aggression and children's expressed wishes. Pending reunification counseling, Brian's contact time was considerably restricted.

Appeal Overview

Brian appealed multiple aspects of the ruling, disputing parenting time allocations, asset division, and child support decisions. The appellate court noted that many sub-issues were forfeited due to inadequate arguments, asserting the trial court's decisions fell within its discretion.

Conclusion

The appellate court affirmed much of the trial court's decision, acknowledging that the trial court considered relevant factors regarding each parent's conduct and the best interests of the children. The reversal regarding Lindsay's TRS pension indicates the complexity of asset evaluations in long-term marriages.