Reimnitz v. Reimnitz

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionPDF versionPDF version

Reimnitz v. Reimnitz

Case Number
S-14-0872
Call Date
January 26, 2016
Court Number
Lancaster
Case Summary

S-14-872 Stephanie Reimnitz (appellant) v. John Remnitz

Lancaster County District Court, Judge Paul D. Merritt, Jr.

Attorneys: Sheri Burkholder/Michael Milone (certified law student) (McHenry Haszard) (Appellant)--Tracy Follmer/Brittney Krause (Keating O'Gara)

Civil: Dissolution

Proceedings below: The court denied Stephanie's request to vacate the parties' marital dissolution decree and instead modified the decree regarding child support, property settlement and parenting agreement.

Issues: 1. The District Court erred when it did not vacate the Decree of Dissolution of Marriage approving and incorporating the parties' Property Settlement and Parenting Agreement. 2. The District Court erred when it did not declare the entire Property Settlement and Parenting Agreement null and void pursuant to the plain language of the Property Settlement and Parenting Agreement. 3. The District Court erred when it failed to find the terms of the Property Settlement and Parenting Agreement inequitable and unconscionable. 4. The District Court erred when it did not award Stephanie an equitable share of the marital estate. 5. The District Court erred when it applied a stale valuation of the Gallup, lnc. Stock based upon a December 31, 2010 value rather than a December 31, 2011 value. 6. The District Court erred when it valued the marital estate as of January 31, 2012 rather than April 4, 2012. 7. The District Court erred when it included future speculative, conditional, and contingent payments to the parties' adult children as marital assets and debts. 8. The District Court erred when it failed to find that the circumstances surrounding formation of the Property Settlement and Parenting Agreement unconscionable or inequitable. 9. The District Court erred in failing to award Stephanie an increase in spousal support. 10. The District Court committed plain error when it found that Stephanie received 35.8% of the marital estate.