Jenne v. Jenne

- 30 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
JENNE v. JENNE
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 30
William D. Jenne, appellant, v.
Kimberlee A. Jenne, appellee.
___ N.W.3d ___
Filed July 2, 2024. 	No. A-23-403.
1. Divorce: Judgments: Appeal and Error. The meaning of a divorce
decree presents a question of law, in connection with which an appellate
court reaches a conclusion independent of the determination reached by
the court below.
2. Attorney Fees: Appeal and Error. On appeal, a trial court’s decision
awarding or denying attorney fees will be upheld absent an abuse of
discretion.
3. Divorce: Property Settlement Agreements: Final Orders. A decree is
a judgment, and once a decree for dissolution becomes final, its mean-
ing, including the settlement agreement incorporated therein, is deter-
mined as a matter of law from the four corners of the decree itself.
4. Judgments: Final Orders. It is inherent to a judgment’s finality that all
are bound by the original language used, and all ought to interpret the
language the same way. Even when the determination involves “inter-
pretation” of the judgment or decree, its meaning is determined, as a
matter of law, by its contents.
5. Divorce: Judgments. Unlike disputes over the meaning of an ambigu-
ous contract, the parties’ subjective interpretations and intentions are
wholly irrelevant to a court’s declaration, as a matter of law, as to the
meaning of an ambiguous decree.
6. Divorce: Pensions: Time. The rationale for using a “date of divorce”
method for pension valuation is that a former spouse would not receive
a windfall benefit from promotions and other pay increases that accrued
from the date of divorce to the date of retirement, to which the former
spouse made no contribution.
7. Divorce: Armed Forces: Pensions: Time. When dividing a military
pension in a divorce proceeding, the nonserving spouse should only be
Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
10/14/2026 07:30 AM CDT

- 31 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
JENNE v. JENNE
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 30
entitled to the portion of the pension that was earned during the mar-
riage, which is an acceptable division in Nebraska.
8. Divorce: Attorney Fees: Appeal and Error. In an action involving
a marital dissolution decree, the award of attorney fees is discretion-
ary with the trial court, is reviewed de novo on the record, and will be
affirmed in the absence of an abuse of discretion.
9. Divorce: Attorney Fees. In dissolution cases, as a matter of custom,
attorney fees and costs are awarded to prevailing parties. In awarding
attorney fees in a dissolution action, a court shall consider the nature
of the case, the amount involved in the controversy, the services actu-
ally performed, the results obtained, the length of time required for
preparation and presentation of the case, the novelty and difficulty of
the questions raised, and the customary charges of the bar for simi-
lar services.
Appeal from the District Court for Sarpy County: Stefanie
A. Martinez, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions.
John A. McWilliams and Philip B. Katz, of Gross, Welch,
Marks & Clare, P.C., L.L.O., for appellant.
Michael B. Lustgarten, of Lustgarten Dudzinski, L.L.C., for
appellee.
Pirtle, Chief Judge, and Riedmann and Bishop, Judges.
Pirtle, Chief Judge.
INTRODUCTION
William D. Jenne (Bill) appeals from an order entered by
the district court for Sarpy County that denied his amended
complaint for declaratory judgment or, in the alternative, his
complaint to modify, and awarded his ex-spouse, Kimberlee
A. Jenne (Kim), an attorney fee of $2,500. The district court
found that Kim’s benefit under Bill’s military pension should
be valued as of the date Bill retired from the military, as
opposed to the date they divorced. However, based on spe-
cific language in the parties’ marriage dissolution decree, we
determine that Kim’s benefit should have been valued as of
the date of the parties’ divorce. Therefore, for the reasons that

- 32 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
JENNE v. JENNE
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 30
follow, we reverse the district court’s order entered on April
27, 2023, and remand the matter with directions.
BACKGROUND
Bill joined the U.S. Air Force Reserve in May 1979. Bill
and Kim were married on February 24, 1984. They divorced
on April 19, 2001. When they divorced, Bill had been in the
Air Force Reserve for 21 years 11 months and had the rank
of major with a corresponding O-4 pay grade. As part of their
divorce, they entered into a property settlement agreement.
Paragraph IX of this property settlement agreement contained
a section concerning the distribution of Bill’s eventual mili-
tary pension:
Each party shall be awarded one-half (½) of [Bill’s]
military 	retirement 	benefits 	accumulated 	during 	the
course of the marriage. The valuation date for these bene-
fits shall be the date of entry of the Decree of Dissolution
of 	Marriage 	and 	Property 	Settlement Agreement 	by
the Court herein. The parties shall utilize the coverture
method for calculating [Kim’s] portion of the military
benefits in which the total number of months of the
marriage shall be the numerator and the total number of
months of military service shall be the denominator.
Several months later, an amendment was necessary because
the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) required
different 	language 	to 	appropriately 	divide 	the 	pension.
Therefore, on July 23, 2001, the district court entered an
order nunc pro tunc that changed the “the third full sentence
in [p]aragraph IX of the Property Settlement Agreement”
to state:
The parties shall utilize the coverture method for calcu-
lating [Kim’s] portion of the military benefits in which
the total number of months of the marriage shall be the
numerator (which number of months is determined to be
206 calculated by taking the number of months between
the date of the marriage, February 24, 1984, and the date

- 33 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
JENNE v. JENNE
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 30
of the entry of the Decree of Dissolution of Marriage,
April 19, 2001) and the total number of months of mili-
tary service shall be the denominator.
Following the parties’ divorce, Bill remained in the Air
Force Reserve until May 2009. Although he retired at that
time, as a reservist, he could not start drawing his retirement
benefits until he turned 60 years of age. When his military
service ended, Bill was a colonel with an O-6 pay grade. He
began receiving his military pension in November 2016.
However, upon Bill’s retirement, DFAS required another
amendment to the agreement to properly divide Bill’s military
pension. Accordingly, on March 22, 2017, the district court
issued an amended order nunc pro tunc, which stated that
the Order Nunc Pro Tunc entered herein on July 23,
2001[,] regarding paragraph IX of the Property Settlement
Agreement entered on April 19, 2001, shall be hereby
changed . . . as follows:
The parties shall utilize the coverture method for cal-
culating [Kim’s] portion of the military benefits. [Kim]
is awarded a percentage of the member’s disposable
military retired pay, to be computed by multiplying 50%
times a fraction, in which the total number of months of
marriage during the member’s creditable military ser-
vice shall be the numerator (which number of months is
determined to be 206 calculated by taking the number of
months between the date of marriage, February 24, 1984,
and the date of the entry of the Decree of Dissolution of
Marriage, April 19, 2001), divided by the member’s total
number of months of creditable service.
(Emphasis omitted.)
However, because the Air Force Reserve calculates retire-
ment benefits on a point system as opposed to months of
service utilized for active duty members, DFAS later required
an order that utilized Bill’s earned points instead of months of
service. Therefore, on September 13, 2017, the district court
issued a “Military Retired Pay Division Order,” which stated:

- 34 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
JENNE v. JENNE
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 30
[Kim] (the former spouse) is awarded a percentage of the
member’s disposable military retired pay, to be computed
by multiplying 50% times a fraction, the numerator of
which is 4,363 Reserve retirement points earned during
the period of the marriage, divided by the member’s total
number of Reserve retirement points earned.
. . . [O]n the date of the Decree of Dissolution of
Marriage (April 19, 2001) the member’s military pay
grade was Major and the member had 21 years and 11
months of service for basic pay purposes.
Following the entry of this division order, which Bill,
through his attorney, had approved as to form and con-
tent, Kim received $81,343.28 from Bill’s pension from 2016
to 2022. As of October 2022, she was receiving $1,924.90
per month.
On May 10, 2021, Bill filed a complaint for declaratory
judgment that alleged Kim was receiving a larger distribution
from the pension than what she was owed. On December 7,
2022, Bill filed an amended complaint for declaratory judg-
ment or, in the alternative, a complaint to modify. He essen-
tially claimed that the district court’s 2017 order was vague
because it did not provide a number for the denominator of
the fraction and was also incorrect because it was using an
inaccurate number for the numerator. Bill also asserted that
Kim was receiving excessive benefits because the calcula-
tion of Kim’s distribution was using his entire time of service
and the pay grade he held when he retired, as opposed to the
number of years he had accrued during the marriage and his
pay grade at the time of the divorce. He claimed this was an
error because the original decree had ordered the valuation of
Kim’s benefits to be calculated at the time of their divorce.
Accordingly, Bill claimed that Kim’s distribution should be
based on his O-4 salary, when he was a major, and the retire-
ment points he had earned up until their divorce, and not
based on his O-6 salary and the total amount of retirement

- 35 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
JENNE v. JENNE
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 30
points he had accumulated when he retired as a colonel many
years later.
A trial was held on March 15, 2023. Bill called as a witness
Richard Crane, who offered expert testimony regarding the
calculation and distribution of military pensions. He explained
that the formula used to calculate an Air Force reservist’s pen-
sion is multifactored. Because reservists are not always on
active duty, they earn one point for every day of active duty
service they perform within a given year. That number of
points is then divided by 360 to reach the number of qualify-
ing years for retirement. The number of qualifying years is
multiplied by 2.5 percent to get the percentage of the reserv-
ist’s monthly salary that he or she will be entitled to under the
reservist’s pension. The salary used in that calculation is the
highest pay earned in any 3 consecutive 3 years, which is com-
monly referred to as the “high three.”
The formulas can be summarized as follows:
• Total Retirement Points ÷ 360 = Years of Service
• Years of Service × 2.5 percent = Salary Percentage
• Salary Percentage × High Three = Monthly Pension Benefit
Crane testified that Kim was receiving an erroneously high
percentage of Bill’s pension because the DFAS was using a
“date of retirement” approach to value her distribution, as
opposed to a “date of divorce” method. The difference in these
methodologies is that the date of divorce method applies the
“frozen benefit rule.” When the frozen benefit rule is used,
the valuation of the reservist’s retirement benefit is calculated
as if the reservist retired on the date of divorce. Therefore,
when the date of divorce method is used, the ex-spouse only
receives a portion of the benefits the reservist earned during
the marriage.
In Crane’s report, which was received as evidence, he cal-
culated what he believed Kim’s benefit should be under the
“date of divorce” method. He did this by calculating what
Bill’s benefit would have been if he retired on the day of
their divorce.

- 36 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
JENNE v. JENNE
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 30
Crane stated that Bill had earned 5,746 retirement points
as of April 19, 2001, when the parties divorced. Therefore,
Crane divided the total amount of Bill’s points (5,746) by
360, which equals 15.9611. This equates to 15.9611 years of
qualifying service. He then multiplied 15.9611 by 2.5 per-
cent, which equals 39.9028 percent, the percentage of Bill’s
monthly pay owed under the pension. At the time of the
divorce, Bill was a major with a “high three” of $4,986.60.
Crane multiplied Bill’s salary of $4,986.60 by 39.9028 per-
cent to get to a monthly retirement benefit of $1,989.79. This
means that if Bill had retired on April 19, 2001, he would
have received a monthly pension of $1,989.79.
To determine how much of that $1,989.79 Kim was owed,
Crane took the 50 percent Kim was owed and multiplied that
by a fraction. The numerator of that fraction was the amount
of retirement points Bill earned during the marriage, which
Crane calculated to be 4,055 points. Then, by utilizing the date
of divorce methodology, Crane calculated the denominator by
taking the total amount of Reserve retirement points Bill had
earned at the time of divorce, 5,746, as opposed to the total
amount of Reserve retirement points Bill earned throughout
his entire military service.
Accordingly, Crane took the amount of retirement points
Bill earned during the marriage (4,055) and divided that by
Bill’s total retirement points at the time of divorce (5,746).
This equaled .7057 percent, meaning that as of the date of
the decree, the parties were married for 70.57 percent of
Bill’s total military service. He then multiplied that number
by 50 percent. That result is 35.2854 percent, which repre-
sents the portion of Bill’s pension owed to Kim. As stated, if
Bill retired on the day of the divorce as a major with an O-4
pay grade, his monthly benefit would have been $1,989.79.
Therefore, taking that monthly benefit of $1,989.79 and mul-
tiplying it by 35.2854 percent, Crane concluded that Kim’s
distribution would have been $702.11, before cost-of-living
allowances.

- 37 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
JENNE v. JENNE
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 30
A summarization of using the date of divorce methodology
versus the date of retirement approach with that formula can
be found below:
Date of Retirement Approach 	Date of Divorce Approach
[(Points Earned During
Marriage
÷
Points at Time
of Retirement)
×
50 Percent]
×
Monthly Pension Benefit
With Pay Grade at
Retirement (Colonel, O-6)
= Kim’s Monthly
Pension Benefit
[(Points Earned During
Marriage
÷
Points at Time
of Divorce)
×
50 Percent]
×
Monthly Pension Benefit
With Pay Grade at Divorce
(Major, O-4)
= Kim’s Monthly
Pension Benefit
Accounting for the cost-of-living allowances, Crane found
that Kim’s monthly distribution was $969.54 in 2016, $972.45
in 2017, $991.90 in 2018, $1,019.67 in 2019, $1,035.99 in
2020, $1,049.46 in 2021, and $1,111.38 in 2022. He then
calculated how much Kim was actually paid from 2016 to
2022 and found that she was overpaid by $7,456.78 during
that period. Additionally, he stated her overpayments were
continuing to increase as she was receiving $813.52 more per
month than she was owed.
During Crane’s testimony, he referred to the Nebraska
Supreme Court’s decision in Weiland v. Weiland, 307 Neb.
882, 951 N.W.2d 519 (2020), which we will discuss in further
detail later in the opinion. But essentially, Crane attempted
to assert that Weiland defines the frozen benefit rule and
provides that using the rule is the proper way to calculate the
division of military retirement benefits, “specifically so that

- 38 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
JENNE v. JENNE
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 30
a former spouse does not receive any benefit from future ser-
vice rank or pay increases that the member actually achieves
after the date of divorce.”
At trial, Kim briefly testified as to her belief that the four
orders all said the same thing in regard to her interest in
Bill’s pension. She also testified that DFAS had processed all
the orders. And she provided some testimony to support her
request for attorney fees.
On April 27, 2023, the district court issued an order
that denied Bill’s amended complaint. The order found that
Weiland was inapplicable, the language of the parties’ decree
supported a date of retirement approach, and using the date
of retirement approach was not precluded under Nebraska or
federal law. In this conclusion, the court partially relied upon
DFAS’ acceptance of the orders and stated that if “[f]ederal
law precluded a date of retirement approach being used in
a divorce case, DFAS would certainly have rejected the
previous Orders.” The court further found that Kim, as the
prevailing party, was entitled to attorney fees in the amount
of $2,500.
Bill now appeals the district court’s order.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
Bill assigns, restated, that the district court erred by (1)
not utilizing the date of divorce to allocate Kim’s share of his
military pension, (2) awarding Kim attorney fees, and (3) not
awarding him attorney fees.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[1] The meaning of a divorce decree presents a question of
law, in connection with which we reach a conclusion indepen-
dent of the determination reached by the court below. Bayne
v. Bayne, 302 Neb. 858, 925 N.W.2d 687 (2019).
[2] On appeal, a trial court’s decision awarding or deny-
ing attorney fees will be upheld absent an abuse of discretion.
SID No. 596 v. THG Development, 315 Neb. 926, 2 N.W.3d
602 (2024).

- 39 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
JENNE v. JENNE
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 30
ANALYSIS
Division of Pension
Bill argues the formula used to calculate Kim’s pension ben-
efit should be based on the O-4 pay grade he held at the time
of the divorce and the amount of retirement points he earned
up until the divorce was finalized. In contrast, Kim contends
the agreement clearly anticipates the use of Bill’s entire mili-
tary service to calculate her share of the pension.
[3-5] A decree is a judgment, and once a decree for dis-
solution becomes final, its meaning, including the settlement
agreement incorporated therein, is determined as a matter
of law from the four corners of the decree itself. Bayne v.
Bayne, supra. It is inherent to a judgment’s finality that all
are bound by the original language used, and all ought to
interpret the language the same way. Id. Even when the deter-
mination involves “interpretation” of the judgment or decree,
its meaning is determined, as a matter of law, by its contents.
Id. Unlike disputes over the meaning of an ambiguous con-
tract, the parties’ subjective interpretations and intentions are
wholly irrelevant to a court’s declaration, as a matter of law,
as to the meaning of an ambiguous decree.
Weiland v. Weiland, 307 Neb. 882, 951 N.W.2d 519 (2020),
involved a similar situation as the one before us. That case
also dealt with how to calculate an ex-wife’s benefit under
her ex-husband’s military pension, which had not vested at the
time the parties divorced. Before reaching the case’s merits,
the Supreme Court explained that, in 1982, Congress passed
the Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act to
remove federal preemption and permit states to apply their
own laws in determining the proper distribution of military
pensions. Weiland v. Weiland, supra.
The 	court 	then 	explained 	that 	the 	Uniformed 	Services
Former Spouses’ Protection Act was amended in 2017 to limit
former spouses’ entitlement to their partner’s pension upon
divorce:

- 40 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
JENNE v. JENNE
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 30
“[I]n the case of a division of property as part of a final
decree of divorce . . . that becomes final prior to the date
of a member’s retirement, the total monthly retired pay to
which the member is entitled shall be[:]
“. . . the amount of retired pay to which the member
would have been entitled using the member’s retired pay
base and years of service on the date of the decree of
divorce, dissolution, annulment or legal separation, as
computed [with appropriate] cost-of-living adjustments.”
Weiland v. Weiland, 307 Neb. at 887, 951 N.W.2d at 523 (quot-
ing 10 U.S.C. § 1408(a)(4)(B) (2018)).
[6] The court then cited a Maryland Court of Appeals case
that articulated the purpose of the amendment:
“[T]his amendment . . . was intended to modify ‘the
division of military retired pay in a divorce decree to
the amount the member would be entitled based upon
the member’s pay grade and years of service at the time
of the divorce rather than at the time of retirement.’
. . . Rather than dividing actual retired pay at the time
of retirement, the benefit would be frozen at the time
of divorce. The rationale for using a ‘date of divorce’
method for pension valuation was that a former spouse
would not receive a windfall benefit from promotions and
other pay increases that accrued from the date of divorce
to the date of retirement, to which the former spouse
made no contribution. . . .
“[Therefore:] The current version of the statute pro-
vides that, in the situation where there is a final decree
of divorce prior to the date of the member’s retirement,
disposable retirement pay is based on ‘the amount of
retired pay to which the member would have been enti-
tled using the member’s retired pay base and years of
service on the date of the decree of divorce, dissolution,
annulment, or legal separation . . . increased by the sum
of specified cost of living adjustments.’. . .”

- 41 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
JENNE v. JENNE
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 30
Weiland v. Weiland, 307 Neb. at 887-88, 951 N.W.2d at 523-
24 (quoting Fulgium v. Fulgium, 240 Md. App. 269, 203 A.3d
33 (2019)).
After the Supreme Court detailed this history and current
state of the federal statute, it turned to the merits of the case
before it. In deciding whether the divorce decree at issue
called for the date of divorce or date of retirement method,
the court relied on the specific language of the decree, which
provided:
“17. That the [ex-husband] accumulates points which
apply to his retirement in the military. The [ex-wife]
is granted one-half of the points accumulated during
the marriage by the [ex-husband] up to the time of the
decree, and shall receive the credits for those points
and the equivalent amount of money in the event [the
ex-husband’s] retirement benefits vest.”
Weiland v. Weiland, 307 Neb. 882, 884, 951 N.W.2d 519,
520 (2020).
[7] The Supreme Court read the “language of the decree
against the foregoing legal authority” and found that the
ex-wife was awarded points accumulated during the mar-
riage and only up to the time of the decree. Id. at 889, 951
N.W.2d at 524. It found that based on the decree’s language,
“the marital estate include[d] only that portion of the pension
which [was] earned during the marriage, which is an accept-
able division in Nebraska.” Id. at 891, 951 N.W.2d at 525. The
court reasoned this conclusion was proper because “the value
of [the ex-wife’s] points should not be inflated to allow her to
benefit from [the ex-husband’s] pay increases after the divorce
decree due to subsequent promotions or length of service.” Id.
We find the same to be true here.
The district court found Weiland was inapplicable because
it 	“specified 	that 	its 	acceptance 	of 	the 	date 	of 	divorce
approach [was] confined to the specific language of the
decree.” However, we find the language in the original decree
in this case to also be clear that each party shall be awarded

- 42 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
JENNE v. JENNE
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 30
one-half of Bill’s military retirement benefits “accumulated
during the course of the marriage” and that it was to be val-
ued as of the “date of entry of the Decree.”
With regard to how the parties agreed to divide Bill’s antic-
ipated military retirement pay, the most significant language
in the property settlement agreement is found in the first two
sentences of paragraph IX. They state, “Each party shall be
awarded one-half (½) of [Bill’s] military retirement benefits
accumulated during the course of the marriage. The valua-
tion date for these benefits shall be the date of entry of the
Decree of Dissolution of Marriage and Property Settlement
Agreement by the Court herein.” The next sentence states that
the parties “shall utilize the coverture method for calculat-
ing [Kim’s] portion of the military benefits in which the total
number of months of the marriage shall be the numerator
and the total number of months of military service shall be
the denominator.” The “total number of months of military
service” can only be read consistently with the first two sen-
tences to mean the total number of months of military service
“accumulated during the course of the marriage.” The parties
specifically agreed to value “these benefits” as of the “date
of entry of the Decree,” and the only way to do that was to
freeze the benefit at the time of divorce. There is no ambigu-
ity in the language of the decree. Although modifications were
necessary to revise “months” to “points,” subsequent attempts
to “clarify” the decree in response to DFAS letters failed to
properly do so.
Ultimately, the district court’s September 13, 2017, “Military
Retired Pay Division Order” set forth the reserve points earned
during the marriage as the numerator (4,363), but then gener-
ally referred to the denominator as Bill’s “total number of
Reserve retirement points earned.” While this suggests the
denominator should include all the points Bill accumulated
during his service, even those earned before and after the
divorce, such an interpretation is contrary to the clear lan-
guage of the decree that each party shall be awarded one-half

- 43 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
JENNE v. JENNE
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 30
of Bill’s military retirement benefits “accumulated during the
course of the marriage” and that it was to be valued as of the
“date of entry of the Decree.” The order’s final paragraph
then states that “on the date of the Decree of Dissolution of
Marriage (April 19, 2001) the member’s military pay grade
was Major and the member had 21 years and 11 months of
service for basic pay purposes.” This language is more in line
with the original decree, in that it can be read to freeze Bill’s
pay grade, Bill’s years of service, and Kim’s interest in Bill’s
military service as of the date of divorce. This properly pre-
cludes consideration of Bill’s military service or increased rank
and pay after the date of divorce. See Weiland v. Weiland, 307
Neb. 882, 951 N.W.2d 519 (2020).
Therefore, like the court’s holding in Weiland, we conclude
that Kim’s share of the pension should not be inflated to allow
her to benefit from the pay increases and promotions Bill
received after the divorce. As stated in the original decree, she
should receive one-half of Bill’s military retirement benefits
“accumulated during the course of the marriage” and it should
be valued as of the “date of entry of the Decree.” As such, we
reverse the decision of the district court.
In summary, we conclude that Kim should have been
awarded a percentage of Bill’s disposable military retired pay,
to be computed by multiplying 50 percent times a fraction,
the numerator of which is 4,363 Reserve retirement points
earned during the period of the marriage, divided by Bill’s
5,746 retirement points earned as of the date of divorce on
April 19, 2001, and that his hypothetical retirement pay as of
the date of decree should be based on his military pay grade
at that time, which was major (O-4). We also note that while
Bill and his expert witness claimed the correct amount of the
numerator should have been 4,055 points instead of 4,363
points, Bill, through his attorney, previously approved as to
form and content the 4,363 points in the September 13, 2017,
“Military Retired Pay Division Order.” We therefore find no
error in maintaining 4,363 points as the fraction’s numerator.

- 44 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
JENNE v. JENNE
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 30
Attorney Fees
Bill next assigns the district court abused its discretion
in awarding Kim attorney fees and not awarding him attor-
ney fees.
[8,9] In an action involving a marital dissolution decree, the
award of attorney fees is discretionary with the trial court, is
reviewed de novo on the record, and will be affirmed in the
absence of an abuse of discretion. Moore v. Moore, 302 Neb.
588, 924 N.W.2d 314 (2019). In dissolution cases, as a matter
of custom, attorney fees and costs are awarded to prevailing
parties. Id. In awarding attorney fees in a dissolution action,
a court shall consider the nature of the case, the amount
involved in the controversy, the services actually performed,
the results obtained, the length of time required for prepara-
tion and presentation of the case, the novelty and difficulty of
the questions raised, and the customary charges of the bar for
similar services. Id.
The district court awarded Kim attorney fees because she
was the prevailing party. However, because we are reversing
the decision of the district court as to the merits of the case,
Kim is no longer the prevailing party. As such, we reverse the
district court’s award of attorney fees and remand the matter
to the district court to determine the amount of attorney fees,
if any, that should have been awarded to Bill as the prevailing
party in the district court.
CONCLUSION
We determine the district court erred when it utilized the
date of retirement instead of the date of divorce in determin-
ing Kim’s share of Bill’s disposable military retirement pay as
set forth above. And, as our decision no longer renders Kim
as the prevailing party, we reverse her award of attorney fees
and remand the matter to the district court to determine the
amount of attorney fees, if any, to be awarded to Bill as the
prevailing party in the district court.
Reversed and remanded with directions.