BROWN VS. BROWN (DIVORCE PROPERTY & ALIMONY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court held that where a divorce decree does not require a party to maintain life insurance policies, the party is entitled to cancel them without consequence; the district court therefore erred in divesting the husband of his interest in the marital residence as a penalty for the cancellation. As to the $70 per diem confinement charge, the court reaffirmed that although courts have inherent power to protect and defend their decrees through contempt proceedings (Noble v. Noble, 86 Nev. 459, 470 P.2d 430 (1970)), they remain bound by statute. Nevada's contempt statutes (NRS 22.010; NRS 22.100; NRS 22.110) authorize fines or confinement, or both, but do not provide for a per diem award to cover the costs of confinement; additionally, the award ran in favor of Clark County, which was not a party to the action. Both rulings were reversed, and the remainder of the judgment - including the treatment of the military benefits as separate property following McCarty v. McCarty, 453 U.S. 210 (1981) - was affirmed.

In plain language

The Browns married in 1954 and divorced in 1980. The divorce decree gave each spouse an equal interest in the couple's insurance policies (including any cash value), awarded the marital home to the wife subject to the husband's $15,000 equity interest payable in five years, and awarded the wife a share of the husband's military retirement as community property. After the husband appealed, the case was sent back in light of a 1981 U.S. Supreme Court decision (McCarty v. McCarty), and the district court then held the military benefits were the husband's separate property and modified the spousal support. The husband refused to comply with the court's orders and, after the decree, canceled his life insurance policies. He was found in contempt and jailed. As a penalty for canceling the policies, the district court stripped him of his interest in the marital home (roughly equal to half the face value of the policies) to compensate the wife for her lost half-interest. It also imposed a $70-per-day charge, payable to Clark County, to cover the costs of his confinement. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed both of those measures. On the insurance, the court held that because the decree never required the husband to keep his life insurance in force, he was entitled to cancel the policies without penalty, so divesting him of his home interest was improper. On the per diem charge, the court held that while courts have inherent power to enforce their decrees through contempt, they are bound by statute; Nevada's contempt statutes allow fines or confinement but do not authorize a daily charge for the cost of confinement, and awarding that charge to Clark County - which was not a party to the divorce - was error. The rest of the district court's judgment was affirmed.