Shada
v.
Shada

Supreme Court of NebraskaJul 14, 1989
232 Neb. 805 (Neb. 1989)
232 Neb. 805442 N.W.2d 386

Cases citing this case

How cited

  • Reinsch v. Reinsch

    …DeVaux v. DeVaux, 245 Neb. 611, 514 N.W.2d 640 (1994). See, Formanack v. Formanack, 234 Neb. 325, 451 N.W.2d…

  • Formanack v. Formanack

    …The awarding of attorney fees expended for a hearing on a modification of a dissolution decree is a matter…

lock 2 Citing caseskeyboard_arrow_right

No. 88-678.

Filed July 14, 1989.

Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County: JOHN E. CLARK, Judge. Affirmed.

Jeff C. Miller and Charles M. Bressman, Jr., of Young White, for appellant.

Jerome J. Ortman for appellee.

HASTINGS, C.J., BOSLAUGH, WHITE, CAPORALE, SHANAHAN, GRANT, and FAHRNBRUCH, JJ.


In this marriage dissolution action, Ardis M. Shada 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.

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).

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.

AFFIRMED.