Ex-wife loses Nebraska bid to protect alimony
By NATE JENKINS / The Associated Press
The ex-wife of a meatpacking plant executive can’t force her ex-husband to take a physical so she can buy a $1 million life insurance policy on him, the state Supreme Court ruled on Friday.
Mary Kay Davis wants the policy as security for alimony and child-support payments totaling more than $1.5 million in the event her former husband, Henry Alan Davis, dies prematurely. He is chief executive of Greater Omaha Packing Co.
Her attorney argued that a Douglas County district judge erred last year in not granting a motion that would have required Henry Davis to take the physical.
But the high court upheld the decision, pointing to a state law the court said requires that a person agree to having a policy on his or her own life. Exams typically are a prerequisite to establish the person’s eligibility for insurance.
“We recognize that courts often compel parties in a marital dissolution ... to perform acts that would otherwise require their consent,” Judge William Connolly wrote in the high court’s opinion. “But a court is not free to ignore a legislative requirement of affirmative consent.”
The Davises’ divorce took three years to litigate, with the decree entered in November 2006.
Henry was required to pay $12,500 a month in alimony for 106 months and $5,000 a month in support for the two young children. He also must provide health insurance for the children and pay their uncovered medical expenses.
Henry has testified that he already has bought a $1 million policy to fund a trust he set up as part of the couple’s property settlement. Henry has said the trust, in addition to Social Security payments, would provide for their two children if he dies before they reach 19, the age of majority in Nebraska.
William Dittrick, who is Mary Kay Davis’ attorney, has said in court papers that the insurance policy she is seeking is necessary because Henry has offered no documentation to show the existence of a $1 million policy to fund the trust — a point Henry disputes.
“Obviously we’re disappointed,” Dittrick said of the high court’s decision on Friday. “We respect the opinion of the Supreme Court. We’re reviewing other avenues to pursue with regards to security for payments of future child support.”
Dittrick said Henry has not failed to meet his child support and alimony obligations thus far.
But Dittrick has said it would be doubtful Mary Kay Davis could find a job that would allow her to make up for lost income if Henry were to die.
Henry’s attorney, John Slowiaczek, has pointed out that Mary Kay Davis, on her own, has considerable resources.
He has said she has about $2.3 million in investments and that she received $1 million in cash from Henry 30 days after their divorce. Her home, Slowiaczek wrote in court papers, is paid off and is worth between $525,000 and $900,000.
Slowiaczek said Mary Kay Davis has no outstanding debt, her $175,000 in attorney fees were paid by Henry and that she received ownership of her Jaguar, her clothing, her jewelry and her personal effects as part of the property settlement.
“By her own testimony, appellant’s net worth is in excess of $4 million,” Slowiaczek wrote.

Facebook
del.icio.us
Fark It
Reddit


Post Your Comment
Standards and RulesYour posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
KC wrote on June 20, 2008 3:05 pm:
I'm a woman..and believe me...not all of us are this ridiculously greedy! OMG!! She has a jag, her house is paid off, and her attorneys fee paid...but shes worried he might die early and she'd lose her alimony?? jeez woman..save some of that money!! And quit making other women seem like gold diggers! "
ET wrote on June 20, 2008 4:18 pm:
Alimony is already a horrific and outdated idea as it is, it's just a way for men to pay welfare to a single person. "
Grundle wrote on June 20, 2008 4:36 pm:
I suspect he's right...it's very difficult to find a job when you don't try...and you wouldn't have to try if you were guaranteed another 1.5 million in the bank upon your ex-husband's death. She may even shed a tear on hearing of his death...knowing that she won't get that fat policy payout. "
David wrote on June 20, 2008 5:56 pm:
What is fair is fair.
Is this equality? Why is there a belief that one is entitled to maintain the same lifestyle when the story has changed?
I get laid off from work. Does my former employer still pay for my health insurance and still send me a check every week after I'm laid off?
No?
Then why should she expect the same thing when her marriage has ended? "
Kip wrote on June 20, 2008 8:06 pm:
AE wrote on June 20, 2008 11:11 pm:
Greedy is right! What is the next step? Moving in and trying to take his social security and complete retirement? I bet if you dig far enough in her settlement from the divorce, you will see that she gets part of his retirement from his job. "
good grief wrote on June 21, 2008 12:26 pm:
I shoulda planned ahead... wrote on June 21, 2008 12:39 pm:
It's funny when I was taking my ex to court for child support etc...I was complimented on the fact that I all wanted was what was fair. I literally just wanted help with our child and for him to have to help out with our child.
It makes me SOOOO mad when these women want to maintain the lives they had when they were married. Hmmm....maybe you should have stayed married? Or maybe you should have married for love rather than money? Maybe you should get a job that pays you to live the life you had?
I don't know this really ticks me off...most of us have a hard enough time getting what's fair and this lady gets to live like a housewife of Orange County????
I like what David said...the ex hubby doesn't get to live the life he had so why should she? If I get fired...my former job doesn't keep paying me.
GGGGRRRRRR...this woman is GRRREEEDY in the highest form! "
Lee wrote on June 22, 2008 10:19 pm:
I'm a woman..and believe me...not all of us are this ridiculously greedy!"
This needs to be addressed.
The point is that we cannot know which woman will behave like Mary Kay Davis until the break happens. Then we discover the true colours beneath the facade. The laws in the USA allow ALL WOMEN to behave like this.
KC, would you live in Iran, where a woman can be beaten or stoned to death for adultery? What if your husband said, "But I would never do that, sweetie. I am not that sort of man." That wouldn't be very comforting, would it?
Men in the USA are in the same position. We live in a legal climate where we are the weaker party, and we hope that the women in our lives behave with honour and honesty and do not take advantage of the laws that are to our detriment. "
zed wrote on June 23, 2008 7:28 am:
Sorry, grrls, this tired old line is worn out. As Lee pointed out, the ones who are "like that" certainly don't announce to a man "Hi, I'm a terminally greedy gold-digger who will ruin your life if I get a chance and take you for every cent I can get." Since there is no protection for men in the legal system from women like this, the only way men have to protect themselves from women "like that" is to assume that all women are until proven otherwise.
Not all the mushrooms which pop up in my front yard after a rain are poisonous, either, but people who treat them like they might be lead longer, happier, healthier lives than people who don't.
Some recent research has shown that men are living longer and are happier as the marriage rate has gone down, while women's happiness has decreased as they have become wage slaves like men used to be. Articles like this are perfect illustrations why. "
Lola wrote on June 23, 2008 10:26 am:
zed wrote on June 23, 2008 11:00 am:
" Hummmm…. Sorry gentleman but maybe you should get to know someone BEFORE you marry them. You CAN determine what “kind” of woman you are marring just as we CAN determine what kind of man."
I agree completely. If a woman marries a deadbeat or an abusive man, she should have gotten to know what kind of man he was BEFORE she married him.
I have followed your advice quite diligently, and as a result never married a woman who went on to cheat on me, or to suddenly become "bored" and divorce me. It's worked out great.
What I find most interesting about your position is how when the tables are turned and something bad happens to a woman we always hear about how "there is no excuse for...", but if a man is getting burned it is always "Well, he should have known better.." which also translates to "he asked for it."
Funny how the shoe fits so differently on the other foot, isn't it? "
Lola wrote on June 23, 2008 12:32 pm:
KC wrote on June 23, 2008 2:37 pm:
I wasn't saying that you men should KNOW what women are like that and what women aren't. All I was saying is that there are women out there(a lot of us), that aren't. I'm on your side on this one guys! I don't expect you to always know when you are getting a gold digger.my point was how shameful it is that this woman ruins the reputation of all exes. I could have gotten a LOT more in child support when I got divorced, but chose the least amount that the judge wouldn't argue with. I wanted my ex to be able to afford to live also. So please...don't take me wrong..i AM on your side on this one..I'm just saying please don't judge all women and ex wives because of this one greedy woman. "