FLETCHER VS. FLETCHER (DIVORCE PROPERTY & ALIMONY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court affirmed the denial of a motion to amend a divorce judgment, applying deferential review. A trial court's determination on conflicting evidence will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence and not clearly erroneous (Ormachea v. Ormachea, 67 Nev. 273, 217 P.2d 355 (1950); Savini Constr. Co. v. A & K Earthmovers, 88 Nev. 5, 492 P.2d 125 (1972)); dispositions of community property and determinations concerning alimony are reviewed for abuse of discretion (Shane v. Shane, 84 Nev. 20, 435 P.2d 753 (1968)). Under NRS 125.150(1), a property division need only be 'just and equitable,' not exactly equal (Fox v. Fox, 81 Nev. 186, 401 P.2d 53 (1965); Winn v. Winn, 86 Nev. 18, 467 P.2d 601 (1970)); substantial evidence supported both the grant of divorce and custody to the respondent and the property disposition. Attorney fees under NRS 125.150(2), although no longer requiring proof of necessitous circumstances (Sargeant v. Sargeant, 88 Nev. 223, 495 P.2d 618 (1972)), remain within the trial court's discretion and are neither automatic nor compulsory; denial was proper where the appellant introduced no supporting evidence. As to the public employee's retirement fund (NRS 286.010 et seq.), the appellant was not an aggrieved party under NRAP 3A(a) because her own motion to amend requested that the respondent be awarded that interest. Affirmed.

In plain language

A judgment gave the husband a divorce, custody of the couple's minor son, and a division of their community property. The wife filed a motion to amend the judgment, asking instead to be granted the divorce, to receive the entire family home as her separate property, along with a car and $150 per month alimony, to be awarded attorney fees, and to have the husband pay all community debts. The trial court denied the motion, and she appealed. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed. It explained that a trial court's decisions on conflicting evidence, on dividing property, and on alimony are reviewed with deference and will not be reversed unless they are clearly erroneous, unsupported by substantial evidence, or an abuse of discretion. Substantial evidence supported granting the husband the divorce and custody and making a 'just and equitable' (not necessarily exactly equal) division of the community property. Attorney fees, although no longer requiring a showing of financial need, are discretionary, and the denial was proper because the wife offered no evidence to support her request. Finally, she could not complain that the husband received his public-employee retirement fund, because her own motion had asked that he be awarded it - so she was not an 'aggrieved party' on that point.