FELIS VS. FELIS (DIVORCE PROPERTY & ALIMONY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

Appeal upon the judgment roll alone from the property provisions of a divorce decree. The plaintiff wife was granted a divorce for extreme cruelty; the decree ordered the defendant husband to convey to her by sufficient quitclaim deed all his interest in the community real estate (four contiguous lots with buildings in Sparks). The husband challenged only that portion of the decree, contending the court erred in requiring the conveyance without first providing for payment of community debts, in modifying in the decree a previous determination (reflected in the findings) that the wife pay him $350 - one-half the sum he had expended improving the community property - upon signing of the decree and delivery of the deed, and that the allowance to the wife of all community realty in lieu of alimony pendente lite and permanent alimony was excessive. Sanders, J.: with no bill of exceptions and no evidence before the court, review was confined to whether the complaint supports the findings and the findings the judgment; both requirements were met, the court below had jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter, and nothing showed an abuse of discretion or excess of jurisdiction in decreeing the community property to the plaintiff. Affirmed.

In plain language

A wife was granted a divorce from her husband on the ground of extreme cruelty. As part of the decree, the trial court ordered the husband to sign over to her, by quitclaim deed, all his interest in the couple's community real estate - four adjoining lots with buildings in Sparks, Nevada. The husband appealed only that property portion of the decree. He argued the court should have first provided for payment of community debts, that the court wrongly modified an earlier determination that the wife pay him $350 (half of what he had spent improving the property), and that giving the wife all the community real estate in place of alimony was excessive. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed. The husband appealed on the 'judgment roll' alone - the bare court file, with no record of the evidence. On such a record, the Supreme Court could ask only whether the complaint supported the findings and the findings supported the judgment, and they did. The trial court had jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter, and nothing in the record showed it abused its discretion or exceeded its powers in awarding the community property to the wife.