GRAHAM VS. GRAHAM (DIVORCE PROPERTY & ALIMONY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court reversed in part the property division in a divorce, holding the district court erred in awarding the marital residence to the husband as separate property. Although the husband owned the residence at the time of the 1979 marriage, in 1984 he executed and promptly recorded a quitclaim deed conveying the property to himself and the wife as joint tenants. The court applied two presumptions. A transfer of title from husband to wife creates a presumption of gift, rebuttable only by clear and convincing evidence. Todkill v. Todkill, 88 Nev. 231, 237, 495 P.2d 629, 632 (1972). Likewise, a valid deed in joint tenancy form raises a presumption that the parties intend to own the property as joint tenants, rebuttable only by clear and convincing evidence; the opinion of either spouse is of no weight, and the presumption may be overcome only by substantial evidence of conduct, expressions, or intent at the time of taking or during the holding of the property. Neumann v. McMillan, 97 Nev. 340, 629 P.2d 1214 (1981); Peters v. Peters, 92 Nev. 687, 692, 557 P.2d 713, 716 (1976). The husband's sole evidence - his testimony that he intended the deed to have no effect until his death - was mere opinion insufficient to rebut the presumption; the district court erred in finding the presumption rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. The court affirmed the award of the husband's business to him as separate property (financed by his separate property, notwithstanding a community-property salary), and remanded for the district court to ensure all horse-breeding partnership assets were divided and to reconsider the wife's appraisal-cost reimbursement, the denial of which had rested on the erroneous separate-property finding.

In plain language

Russell and Alice Graham divorced, and part of the appeal concerned how their property was divided. When they married in 1979, Russell owned the couple's residence. But in 1984, he signed and recorded a quitclaim deed transferring the home into joint tenancy - that is, into the names of himself and Alice together. Despite that deed, the district court awarded the residence to Russell as his sole and separate property. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed on the house. It explained two well-established presumptions: first, when a husband transfers title to his wife, the law presumes he intended a gift; and second, a valid deed creating a joint tenancy presumes the parties intended to own the property as joint tenants. Both presumptions can be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence, and the personal opinion of either spouse counts for nothing. Russell's only evidence was his own testimony that he did not intend the deed to take effect until his death. The court held that was merely his opinion and was not enough to overcome the presumption. So the deed created a joint tenancy in the home, and the district court erred in finding otherwise. The court affirmed other parts of the ruling. It upheld awarding Russell's business to him as separate property, since it was financed with his separate funds (even though he drew a community-property salary from it). But it sent the case back for the trial court to make sure all of the assets of a horse-breeding partnership were actually divided, and to reconsider whether Alice should be reimbursed for the cost of appraising the residence - since the trial court had denied that reimbursement based on its now-reversed finding that the home was Russell's separate property.