GARRETT VS. GARRETT (CHILD SUPPORT)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

By the Court, Springer, J. (Steffen, C.J., and Young, J., concurring). The court affirmed a child support award, construing the interplay of the NRS 125B.070 formula cap and the NRS 125B.080(6) deviation authority. Under NRS 125B.070, the obligation for two children is 25 percent of gross monthly income 'but not more than $500 per month per child . . . unless the court sets forth findings of fact . . . pursuant to subsection 6 of NRS 125B.080.' The family court set the presumptive (NRS 125B.080(5)) obligation at the $500 cap ($1,000 total), then deviated downward to $700, making findings under NRS 125B.080(9) based on the noncustodial parent's travel expenses, the parties' relative incomes, and time spent with the parents. The court rejected the custodial parent's contention that the amount 'established under the applicable formula' was 25 percent of gross income ($1,354.16), from which any deviation must be measured. It held the $500-per-child cap is the amount 'established' by the formula and the starting point for calculating any deviation, greater or less; a contrary rule would make the 'established' amount vary in every case where the percentage exceeds the cap, contrary to the statute's directive that an award 'shall not' exceed $500 per child unless the facts support a deviation. The court additionally observed that the appellant demonstrated no prejudice - no showing the result would differ had the calculation begun at $1,354.16 - and noted the starting point makes little practical difference to a deviation reviewable for abuse of discretion. Finding the family court followed the statute exactly, the court affirmed.

In plain language

This case is about how Nevada's child-support cap works. The custodial mother, Lee Ann Garrett, has two children. Under the support formula, a noncustodial parent pays 25 percent of gross monthly income for two children, 'but not more than $500 per month per child' - a $500-per-child cap - unless the court makes findings to justify a different amount. Here the family court first set support at the $500 cap ($1,000 total for two children), then decided to deviate downward, and, after making the required findings (based on the noncustodial parent's travel expenses, the parties' relative incomes, and time spent with each parent), awarded $700 per month. Lee Ann argued that the amount 'established' by the formula was really 25 percent of income - $1,354.16 - and that any deviation should start from that higher number, not from the $1,000 cap. The Supreme Court rejected this. It held the $500-per-child cap is the amount 'established' by the formula; that capped figure is the starting point from which a court calculates any deviation upward or downward. Reading the statute otherwise would make the 'established' amount different in every case where 25 percent exceeds the cap, contrary to the statute's plain language that support 'shall not' exceed $500 per child unless the facts support a deviation. The Court also noted that even under Lee Ann's reading she showed no prejudice - she did not show the result would have differed had the court started from $1,354.16 - so the judgment would be affirmed regardless. Finding the family court followed the statute exactly and did not abuse its discretion, the Court affirmed.