BUCHANAN VS. BUCHANAN (DIVORCE PROPERTY & ALIMONY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

Applying the abuse-of-discretion standard, the court affirmed a divorce decree's child support award and its denial of alimony. Child support under NRS 125.140(1) turns on the child's reasonable needs and the father's ability to pay; the trial court's determination, drawing on its knowledge, training, and experience, will not be disturbed absent a clear case of abuse, and the possibility that a father could pay more does not render the award inadequate. Atkins v. Atkins, 50 Nev. 333, 259 P. 288 (1927); Goodman v. Goodman, 68 Nev. 484, 236 P.2d 305 (1951); Cosner v. Cosner, 78 Nev. 242, 371 P.2d 278 (1962); Timney v. Timney, 76 Nev. 230, 351 P.2d 611 (1960). On alimony, the court reiterated that a wife granted a divorce is not entitled to alimony as a matter of right; the award lies within a wide but controlled discretion informed by the parties' financial condition, their property, the duration of the marriage, and each spouse's age, health, station, and earning capacity. Freeman v. Freeman, 79 Nev. 33, 378 P.2d 264 (1963); NRS 125.150(1). Presuming that proper regard was given to the alimony issue and finding the rulings supported by substantial evidence, the court held no abuse of discretion plainly appeared. Affirmed (the opinion also notes the court's prior pendente lite orders during the appeal and its transfer of a pending contempt motion to the district court for an evidentiary hearing).

In plain language

The wife was granted a divorce, custody of the couple's twin daughters, $150 per month per child in support, and no alimony. She appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by ordering 'only' $150 per child and by refusing her any alimony. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed. On child support, it explained that the proper amount rests on two questions - what the children reasonably need and what the father can reasonably afford - and that the trial court had reviewed the wife's own expense exhibit and the father's income and heavy monthly obligations. Even though the father (a lawyer whose income had spiked in one exceptional year) could arguably pay more, the fact that a parent could pay more does not by itself make the awarded amount an abuse of discretion; support is committed to the trial court's discretion, not to the child as an absolute right to the maximum. On alimony, the Court reaffirmed that a wife who is granted a divorce is not entitled to alimony as a matter of right; the award is discretionary and depends on the facts. Considering the short (roughly three-year) marriage, the wife's age, health, and ability to work, and the husband's finances, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining alimony. The Court also noted the trial court had ordered a $3,600 payment (as part of the property settlement, not alimony) to help her adjust to her situation.