Higgins v. Currier

950 N.W.2d 631 (2020)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Higgins (H) and W were married in Washington. W and her son from a prior relationship lived in Washington and H lived in Council Bluffs, Iowa. Following the marriage, Wand her son moved to Council Bluffs to live with H. H and W have no children together. H has been employed by TD Ameritrade since 1997. During a portion of the 14 months, W worked part-time. In July 2017, W and her son moved back to Washington. H moved to Omaha, Nebraska. After July 2017, the parties remained in contact and took occasional trips to visit one another. The parties were unable to reconcile and ended their relationship in March 2018. H filed for dissolution of marriage. H testified that his 3733 account was in existence prior to the marriage and that he did not make any deposits into the account during the marriage. H asked that the court award all funds in that account to him as a premarital asset. H testified that he had a 401K account, which was established prior to the marriage. He also asked that the district court award that account to him, but he did not provide any other testimony or documentation with respect to that account. W testified that H had two different 401K accounts and that he was depositing $1,500 per month into the accounts. W also introduced and the court received two account statements for a TD Ameritrade 401K account with an account number ending in '0510' (the 0510 account). The account statements are in H's name and show that the 0510 account had a value of $218,182.02 as of May 2016 and a value of $359,128.29 as of March 2018. H held stocks and mutual funds within the account and securities were sold and purchased and interest income was received. The district court awarded W $303, representing half of the balance in a bank account in both parties' names. The court also awarded her $3,570, a sum representing half of an income tax refund that accumulated during the portion of 2016 the parties were married. The court found that the TD Ameritrade account ending in '0733' (presumably the 3733 account) was H's premarital asset and that 'all accumulations to [that] account were from that premarital asset.' It awarded H that account and any other 'TD Ameritrade accounts which belonged to [H] prior to the marriage.' The operative dates for the marriage were from May 2016 to July 2017 and H thus made $21,000 in contributions to the 401K account that were subject to division. W got $10,500 from the 401K. The court awarded the parties any other retirement plans held in their own names. W appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decree. It acknowledged the district court's receipt of account statements showing that the value of that account increased from $218,182.02 in May 2016 to $359,128.29 in March 2018 and that stocks and mutual funds were sold and purchased within the account during that time. It held that the statements did not indicate that active appreciation was the cause of the increase in value, but, rather, they suggested that 'the account fluctuates, presumably depending on market forces.' W appealed.