GIORGI VS. GIORGI (DIVORCE PROPERTY & ALIMONY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

On the wife's appeal from the property portion of a divorce decree, the husband sought restoration of separate funds contributed toward a jointly held home. Both parties accepted that separate funds paid toward property held in joint tenancy are presumed a gift to the wife or the joint tenancy, and the husband bore the burden to overcome the presumption by clear and convincing evidence (Weeks v. Weeks, 72 Nev. 268, 302 P.2d 750; Peardon v. Peardon, 65 Nev. 717, 201 P.2d 309; Zahringer v. Zahringer, 76 Nev. 21, 348 P.2d 161). The court concluded NRS 125.150 did not appear to apply to a provision restoring the husband's separate funds. The court held the presumption was overcome by the wife's repeated, undenied statements that in the event of divorce she did not want any property the husband owned before marriage, which by necessary implication recognized his right to receive it; this was substantial evidence supporting that aspect of the judgment. On the amount, the tangible evidence of separate funds (down payment of $2,840.59 plus $1,716 to discharge a first deed of trust, totaling $4,556.59) plus the wife's concession that at least $6,000 of the husband's separate property was used toward the home supported a $6,000 credit; evidence of any amount above $6,000 was too uncertain and speculative to constitute substantial evidence (Clark County School District v. Mueller, 76 Nev. 11, 348 P.2d 164). The court modified the judgment to reduce the sum awarded to the husband to $6,000 and affirmed as modified.

In plain language

When the wife was granted a divorce, the decree dealt with a house the couple had bought in 1951 and held as joint tenants. The husband had contributed money that was his separate property (owned before marriage) toward buying and improving the home. The decree ordered the house sold for at least $12,500, directed that the husband first be repaid $8,656.59 as his separate funds, and split the remaining proceeds equally. The wife appealed that part of the decree, arguing the court exceeded its authority and that any separate funds the husband put into the jointly held home should be presumed a gift. The Nevada Supreme Court agreed with the general legal principle that separate funds placed into a joint tenancy are presumed to be a gift, and the husband bore the burden of overcoming that presumption with clear and convincing evidence. But it held the husband had rebutted the presumption: the wife had repeatedly told him she did not want any of his premarital property in the event of a divorce, and she never denied saying so. That uncontradicted evidence supported the court's decision to restore his separate funds to him and defeated the gift presumption. However, the court found the specific dollar amount unsupported. The clearly documented separate contributions (down payment and paying off a deed of trust) totaled about $4,556.59, plus an unspecified amount used in remodeling. Given the wife's own concession that at least $6,000 of the husband's separate property went into the home, the evidence supported a $6,000 credit, but evidence of any larger amount was too speculative to support the larger figure. The court therefore modified the judgment to award the husband $6,000 as his separate funds and, as modified, affirmed.