ELLETT VS. ELLETT (DIVORCE PROPERTY & ALIMONY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court affirmed in part and reversed in part a supplemental divorce decree. (1) Retirement benefits: because the January partial decree expressly reserved property division and alimony, it was interlocutory and not a final judgment (Ormachea v. Ormachea, 67 Nev. 273, 217 P.2d 355 (1950)); under NRS 125.150(1) the district court properly awarded the wife a half-interest in retirement benefits accruing through the May supplemental decree. (2) Community vehicles: awarding two community automobiles to the parties' adult daughters was error, because the NRS 125.150(1) discretion to burden community property for the benefit of children does not extend to children beyond the age of majority (NRS 129.010). (3) Alimony: the $750 per month permanent alimony award was supported by substantial evidence (Buchanan v. Buchanan) and not an abuse of discretion. (4) Attorney's fees: the $3,000 award was within discretion under NRS 125.150(2); necessitous circumstances are not a prerequisite (Sargeant v. Sargeant). (5) The order to pay "all outstanding debts" was not void for uncertainty given the record. Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded for redistribution of the two vehicles.

In plain language

In this divorce, the district court first entered a partial decree in January 1976 that ended the marriage but expressly reserved the questions of property division and alimony for later. A supplemental decree resolving those issues followed in May 1976. The husband appealed several parts of the final result. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed most of the rulings but reversed one. On the husband's retirement plan, the court upheld awarding the wife a half-interest in the benefits that accrued up to the May supplemental decree, explaining that the January decree was only interlocutory (not final) because it reserved the property questions, so the community continued to have an interest in the retirement benefits until the final decree. On alimony, the court affirmed the $750 per month award, noting substantial evidence that the wife could not work because of a chronic bowel disease and would lose the husband's medical coverage. It also affirmed the $3,000 attorney fee award, reiterating that a spouse need not be in necessitous circumstances to receive fees. And it upheld the order requiring the husband to pay "all outstanding debts," finding the record made the obligation sufficiently certain. The one reversal concerned two old community-property cars the court had awarded to the parties' two adult daughters. The Supreme Court held this was error: the statutory power to dispose of community property for the benefit of children does not extend to children who have reached the age of majority. That part was reversed and remanded for redistribution of the two vehicles.