BUAAS VS. BUAAS (DIVORCE PROPERTY & ALIMONY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

Appeal by the defendant and cross-complainant wife from a divorce decree (extreme cruelty) that divided the parties' community property. Held: (1) relief under a general prayer must follow legitimately from the pleadings and proof; here the complaint, answer (admitting community property in Nevada and California), cross-complaint, and reply all placed property division in issue, so the decree conformed to the case made, and under N.C.L. sec. 9463 (as amended 1943) the court could make a just and equitable disposition of the community property even absent a general prayer. (2) Though a Nevada court cannot render an in rem judgment on title to California realty, with both parties before it, it may act in personam to affect foreign land indirectly (Fall v. Eastin, 215 U.S. 1). (3) Under N.C.L. sec. 9467.04, a cause for divorce may be pleaded in the words of the statute; the allegation that "defendant has treated the plaintiff with extreme cruelty" was sufficient, and Nielsen v. Nielsen, 55 Nev. 425, 38 P.2d 663 (barring reliance on a general allegation contradicted by pleaded specifics), was inapposite. Affirmed.

In plain language

A husband was granted a divorce on the ground of extreme cruelty, and the decree divided the couple's community property, including property in California. The wife appealed. She argued, first, that the Nevada court had no power over California land and could not divide property under a general prayer for relief, and second, that the complaint's allegation of extreme cruelty was too vague to support the divorce. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed. Because both parties were before the court and both had, in their pleadings, asked for a division of the community property, the court had authority to divide it. While a Nevada court cannot directly pass on title to out-of-state land, it may act on the parties personally (in personam) to affect California property indirectly. And a divorce complaint may allege a cause for divorce in the words of the statute; the allegation that the defendant "has treated the plaintiff with extreme cruelty" was sufficient, especially since a bill of particulars was available on demand.