ADLER VS. ADLER (DIVORCE PROPERTY & ALIMONY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

Badt, C.J. A trial court's denial of a motion to modify (reduce) alimony is reviewed for abuse of discretion; none occurred where the 1953 decree reserved jurisdiction to reduce upon a showing of substantial adverse change in income, the obligor's loss of salaried employment could reasonably be viewed as temporary, and his net worth remained substantially unchanged. See Toth v. Toth, 80 Nev. 33, 389 P.2d 73 (1964); Schmutzer v. Schmutzer, 76 Nev. 123, 350 P.2d 142 (1960). On the fee award, because the appellate record was identical to that before the trial court, the appellate court could itself evaluate the reasonableness of counsel's services (Mortimer v. Pacific States Savings & Loan Co., 62 Nev. 142, 145 P.2d 733 (1944)); a $3,000 fee for the limited services rendered in opposing the modification motion was excessive and an abuse of discretion, and was reduced to $1,000. The court further allowed $500 for the wife's counsel on the appeal.

In plain language

The parties divorced in 1953, and the decree ordered the husband to pay alimony of $130 a week; it also expressly reserved the court's power to reduce that amount if the husband later showed a substantial adverse change in his income. Years later, after the husband (then 55) lost his executive job paying $22,500 a year and saw his income drop to about $11,300 from investments, he asked the court to cut his alimony to $150 a month. The trial court refused, and it also ordered him to pay $3,000 toward his wife's attorney fees. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the refusal to reduce alimony, finding no abuse of discretion - the judge could reasonably view the husband's unemployment as temporary, and his overall net worth was about the same as at the time of the divorce. But the court held the $3,000 attorney fee was excessive for the limited work actually done in opposing the motion, and reduced it to $1,000. It also awarded the wife's counsel $500 for the appeal.