FICK VS. FICK (DIVORCE PROPERTY & ALIMONY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

Property acquired during marriage is presumed community property (NRS 123.220), though spouses may hold property in joint tenancy (NRS 123.030); a valid joint-tenancy deed rebuttably overcomes the community presumption (Forrest v. Forrest, 99 Nev. 602, 668 P.2d 275 (1983)), but under NRS 125.150(1)(b) the court must equitably divide both community property and joint tenancies created after July 1, 1979. Robert waived the lot-characterization argument by repeatedly labeling the lot community property below (McCullough v. State, 99 Nev. 72, 657 P.2d 1157 (1983); McKay v. City of Las Vegas, 106 Nev. 203, 789 P.2d 584 (1990)); any error was harmless; and he lacked standing to raise his grandson's interest. Findings of fact are not set aside unless clearly erroneous (Hermann Trust v. Varco-Pruden Buildings, 106 Nev. 564, 796 P.2d 590 (1990)); substantial evidence (the home's disrepair) supported the $60,000 valuation. Premarital agreements are reviewed de novo and, if entered before October 1, 1989, are enforceable if they satisfy NRS Chapter 123A (the UPAA) or common law (Sogg v. Nevada State Bank, 108 Nev. 308, 832 P.2d 781 (1992)). A premarital agreement may eliminate alimony (NRS 123A.050) but is unenforceable if unconscionable, involuntary, or lacking full disclosure of assets and obligations before execution (NRS 123A.080; NRS 123A.080(1)(c); Buettner v. Buettner, 89 Nev. 39, 45, 505 P.2d 600, 604 (1973)). Because Robert disclosed his asset schedule only a year after signing, Bernice could not have known the magnitude of his assets before marriage; full disclosure must precede execution, and the confidential, fiduciary relationship of engaged parties requires it. The waiver was therefore unenforceable. Finally, though rehabilitative alimony was within the court's discretion (Rutar v. Rutar, 108 Nev. 203, 827 P.2d 829 (1992)) given the disparity in education and earning potential, NRS 125.150(9) requires establishing a time frame to commence re-education, which the district court failed to do. Affirmed in part and remanded in part.

In plain language

Robert and Bernice Fick married in 1984 after signing a prenuptial agreement (drafted by Robert) that waived alimony; the agreement referenced attached asset schedules, but Robert did not attach his schedule until a year after signing. On divorce, the district court characterized a Cold Creek lot as community property and ordered it sold, valued the couple's Las Vegas house at $60,000, declared the prenuptial alimony waiver unenforceable, and awarded Bernice unpaid support, $3,000 in rehabilitative alimony, and attorney's fees. Robert appealed. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed in part and remanded in part. On the lot, Robert had repeatedly treated it as community property below, waiving his joint-tenancy argument; regardless, NRS 125.150 allows equitable division of both community property and post-1979 joint tenancies, so any mischaracterization was harmless, and Robert lacked standing to assert his grandson's interest. The $60,000 house valuation was supported by substantial evidence given the home's disrepair. The court affirmed invalidation of the prenuptial alimony waiver: even though Bernice signed voluntarily, had a chance to consult counsel, and understood the deal, the agreement was unenforceable because Robert failed to fully disclose his assets and obligations BEFORE execution. Finally, while rehabilitative alimony was justified by the disparity in the parties' education and earning potential, the district court failed to set a time frame for Bernice to begin re-training as NRS 125.150(9) requires, so that issue was remanded.