CANUL VS. CANUL (DIVORCE PROPERTY & ALIMONY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

This per curiam opinion affirms in part and reverses in part a divorce judgment and community property distribution. On the discovery issue, appellant could not complain of the failure to compel answers to NRCP 33 interrogatories because the parties had stipulated at a hearing that answers would be unnecessary if respondent testified he had disclosed all property interests in a prior deposition, a condition respondent satisfied at trial. Second Baptist Church v. Mount Zion Baptist Church, 86 Nev. 164, 466 P.2d 212 (1970). On the evidentiary ruling, the court rejected the challenge because appellant neither suggested nor demonstrated prejudice; under NRS 47.040(1), error may not be predicated on a ruling admitting or excluding evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected. On the property distribution, the court held part of the distribution erroneous: the residence at 1132 15th Street in Las Vegas was classified as community property but was merely held for the benefit of a third party, and the court failed to classify or distribute two insurance policies. The remainder of the distribution was equitable and revealed no abuse of discretion. NRS 125.150; Armour v. Armour, 93 Nev. 63, 560 P.2d 148 (1977); Benavidez v. Benavidez, 92 Nev. 539, 554 P.2d 256 (1976). The judgment was affirmed except as to the residence and insurance policies, which were reversed and remanded.

In plain language

After the district court dissolved the marriage of Roberta and her husband and divided their community property, Roberta appealed, raising three problems. The Nevada Supreme Court agreed with her on only one part of the property division and otherwise affirmed. First, Roberta said the trial court wrongly refused to force her husband to answer written questions (interrogatories) before trial. The Supreme Court rejected this because, at a hearing, the parties had agreed that answering the interrogatories would be unnecessary if the husband testified that he had already disclosed all of his property in an earlier deposition. He did testify to that at trial, satisfying the deal, so Roberta could not complain of error. Second, she argued the court improperly admitted certain evidence. The court rejected this too, because she never showed she was harmed by that evidence, and under Nevada law an evidence ruling cannot be reversed unless it affects a substantial right of the party. Third, she challenged the property division itself, and here she partly succeeded. The court agreed that part of the distribution was wrong: the family residence had been classified as community property even though it was actually just being held for the benefit of a third party, and the court had also failed to classify or distribute two insurance policies. Apart from those items, the division was equitable and showed no abuse of discretion. So the judgment was affirmed except for the parts dealing with the residence and the insurance policies, which were reversed and sent back for further proceedings.