EDWARDS VS. EDWARDS (DIVORCE PROPERTY & ALIMONY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

Zenoff, D.J. The husband appealed the denial of his motion to modify the alimony and child support provisions of a 1963 divorce decree (which incorporated the parties' agreement providing $150 monthly alimony and $175 monthly for each of two children, over which the court retained jurisdiction to modify). The proceeding was authorized by NRS 125.170(1) and governed by NRS 125.140(2) (citing Folks v. Folks, 77 Nev. 45, 359 P.2d 92 (1961); Grenz v. Grenz, 78 Nev. 394, 374 P.2d 891 (1962)), and the sole issue was whether the trial court abused its discretion (Goodman v. Goodman, 68 Nev. 484, 236 P.2d 305 (1951)). The husband, an orchestra leader at the Sparks Nugget, showed a reduced income (from $27,380 net at divorce to under $17,000), fewer weeks of employment as the casino imported self-accompanied acts and closed its show room, increased orchestra costs, higher withholding, and a new family from remarriage. The court affirmed, holding no abuse of discretion: the trial judge found the husband could meet the original order even with reduced income if he curtailed voluntarily incurred personal expenses, noting that after the divorce he had acquired two additional automobiles (conceding only one was necessary), the payments and insurance on which exceeded $200 per month - the very reduction he sought - so he could obtain his own relief by disposing of the excess vehicles. Affirmed.

In plain language

When Foster and Vera Edwards divorced in 1963, the decree (based on their agreement) required Foster to pay $150 a month in alimony plus $175 a month for each of two children - $500 a month total - and the court kept the power to change these amounts later. In 1965 Foster asked the court to eliminate the alimony and cut child support, a total reduction of $200 a month, saying his income had dropped. The court refused, and he appealed. Foster was an orchestra leader at the Sparks Nugget. His income had indeed fallen (from about $27,000 to under $17,000) because the casino imported acts with their own music and closed the showroom for several weeks a year, and his costs of keeping musicians and his taxes had gone up. He had also remarried and had a new child. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed. The only question was whether the trial court abused its discretion, and it had not. The trial judge was unimpressed that Foster had not tried to cut his own expenses: after the divorce he bought two more cars (admitting only one was needed), and the payments and insurance on those two extra cars came to more than $200 a month - exactly the reduction he was seeking. Since Foster could obtain his own relief by getting rid of the excess cars, the court found no abuse of discretion in denying his motion.