HANSEN VS. HANSEN (CHILD CUSTODY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The Court of Appeals reviewed each of Irina's claims under an abuse-of-discretion standard and affirmed. Child support. Child support orders are reviewed for abuse of discretion, Edgington v. Edgington, 119 Nev. 577, 588, 80 P.3d 1282, 1290 (2003), and underlying factual findings will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence, Miller v. Miller, 134 Nev. 120, 125, 412 P.3d 1081, 1085 (2018); Ellis v. Carucci, 123 Nev. 145, 149, 161 P.3d 239, 242 (2007). Where gross monthly income is disputed, the court determines the obligor's gross monthly income under NAC 425.120(1)(b) after considering all relevant financial information, and appellate courts leave credibility determinations to the district court, Ellis, 123 Nev. at 152, 161 P.3d at 244. The district court reviewed pay stubs, tax documents, and testimony, found Donovan's gross monthly income to be $15,376.19, and ordered $1,445 per month pursuant to NAC 425.140 after accounting for the health insurance premium. The court found the income findings supported by substantial evidence and declined to reweigh credibility. Alimony. District courts have broad discretion to award alimony, Kogod v. Cioffi-Kogod, 135 Nev. 64, 66, 439 P.3d 397, 400 (2019), and may award alimony "as appears just and equitable," NRS 125.150(1)(a). Amount and duration turn on what is just and equitable in the circumstances, Shydler v. Shydler, 114 Nev. 192, 199, 954 P.2d 37, 41 (1998), and alimony may be just and equitable to support economic needs, equalize post-divorce earnings, or maintain the marital standard of living, Kogod, 135 Nev. at 68, 439 P.3d at 401. The court must consider the NRS 125.150(9) factors plus any other relevant factors, id. at 66, 439 P.3d at 400-01. The district court applied NRS 125.150(9), found Irina could earn $3,000 per month, found her reasonable post-divorce needs at approximately $5,500, considered her employment prospects and child support, and awarded $3,000 per month for 60 months. The court found this supported by substantial evidence, Williams v. Williams, 120 Nev. 559, 566, 97 P.3d 1124, 1129 (2004). Division of property. Property division is reviewed for abuse of discretion, Schwartz v. Schwartz, 126 Nev. 87, 90, 225 P.3d 1273, 1275 (2010), and will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence, Williams, 120 Nev. at 566, 97 P.3d at 1129. Community property is to be divided equally to the extent practicable, except that the court may make an unequal disposition upon a compelling reason set forth in writing, NRS 125.150(1)(b); assertions of waste may constitute such a compelling reason, Kogod, 135 Nev. at 75, 439 P.3d at 406. The district court entered value findings, ordered an equal distribution, found much of Irina's valuation testimony not credible, ordered sale of the encumbered marital residence, and found waste unproven. Regarding separate property, reviewed for abuse of discretion under Smith v. Smith, 94 Nev. 249, 252, 578 P.2d 319, 320 (1978), property owned before marriage is separate property, NRS 123.130, and the record supported the finding that the $87,992.62 in Donovan's deferred compensation account at the time of marriage was his separate property. PERS survivor beneficiary. Retirement benefits earned during marriage are community property, Gemma v. Gemma, 105 Nev. 458, 460-61, 778 P.2d 429, 430 (1989). Nevada "does not consider a survivorship interest to be a community property asset and, as such, does not require a divorce decree to provide a former spouse with a survivor beneficiary interest," Holguin v. Holguin, No. 81373, 2021 WL 3140576, at *1 (Nev. July 23, 2021); see also Henson v. Henson, 130 Nev. 814, 815-16, 334 P.3d 933, 934 (2014). The court divided the community interest under the "time rule" and "wait and see" approach, Fondi v. Fondi, 106 Nev. 856, 859, 802 P.2d 1264, 1266 (1990), and permitted Donovan to designate the survivor beneficiary at retirement. Reviewing factual findings deferentially and conclusions of law de novo, Kilgore v. Kilgore, 135 Nev. 357, 359-60, 449 P.3d 843, 846 (2019), the court found no abuse of discretion. Attorney fees. Attorney fee awards are reviewed for abuse of discretion, Miller v. Wilfong, 121 Nev. 619, 622, 119 P.3d 727, 729 (2005), and an abuse occurs when the decision is unsupported by substantial evidence, Otak Nev., LLC v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 129 Nev. 799, 805, 312 P.3d 491, 496 (2013). A court may award fees in a divorce, NRS 125.150(4), to allow a spouse to meet the other in court on an equal basis, Sargeant v. Sargeant, 88 Nev. 223, 227, 495 P.2d 618, 621 (1972), and must consider the Brunzell v. Golden Gate National Bank, 85 Nev. 345, 349, 455 P.2d 31, 33 (1969), factors plus the income disparity under Wright v. Osburn, 114 Nev. 1367, 1370, 970 P.2d 1071, 1073 (1998); Miller, 121 Nev. at 623-24, 119 P.3d at 730. Considering both parties' substantial expenditures, Irina's conduct, and the income disparity, the court awarded Irina $10,000, which the appellate court found supported by the record. Judicial bias. Applying Canarelli v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 138 Nev. 104, 107, 506 P.3d 334, 337 (2022), the court held Irina failed to show the district court's decisions were based on knowledge acquired outside the proceedings or reflected "a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible." The court noted that rulings during judicial proceedings generally do not establish grounds for disqualification, In re Petition to Recall Dunleavy, 104 Nev. 784, 789, 769 P.2d 1271, 1275 (1988), and that the party asserting bias bears the burden, Rivero v. Rivero, 125 Nev. 410, 439, 216 P.3d 213, 233 (2009).

In plain language

Irina and Donovan Hansen married in 2007 and have one child. During the marriage Donovan worked as a firefighter (later a battalion chief) for the city of North Las Vegas, while Irina initially worked as a real-estate agent, became a stay-at-home mother, and later obtained a cosmetology license and opened a salon using a home-equity loan. When the marriage broke down, Donovan filed for divorce in 2019. The case went to trial in 2021, where Donovan had a lawyer and Irina represented herself. The trial court divided the couple's property, set child support and alimony, and awarded joint legal custody with Irina having primary physical custody. Irina appealed, arguing the trial court got several financial issues wrong and was biased against her. The Court of Appeals of Nevada rejected each argument and affirmed (upheld) the trial court's decision. On child support, Irina argued the court used inaccurate figures for Donovan's income. The appeals court explained that trial judges decide disputed facts and weigh witness credibility, and appellate courts do not second-guess those calls when they are supported by adequate evidence. Donovan's pay stubs, tax documents, and testimony supported the court's finding that his gross monthly income was $15,376.19, which produced a child support order of $1,445 per month. On alimony, Irina wanted at least $6,000 per month rather than the $3,000 per month for 60 months she received. The appeals court noted trial courts have broad discretion to award alimony that is "just and equitable." The trial court found Irina could earn about $3,000 per month from her cosmetology work and salon, that her reasonable post-divorce expenses were about $5,500, and considered her child support - and concluded $3,000 per month for five years was appropriate. The appeals court found this supported by the evidence. On property division, Irina argued Donovan got an unequal share without proper findings, that she should have kept the marital home, and that Donovan wasted community assets. The appeals court explained that community property is generally split equally, that the trial court found much of Irina's testimony about asset values not credible, that selling the marital home made sense given the mortgage and home-equity loan on it, and that Irina had not proven waste. It also upheld the finding that money in Donovan's deferred compensation account before the marriage ($87,992.62) was his separate property. On the pension issue, Irina wanted to be named the survivor beneficiary on Donovan's PERS (Public Employees' Retirement System) benefits. The appeals court explained that under Nevada law a divorce decree does not have to give a former spouse a survivor beneficiary interest, and the trial court permissibly let Donovan choose his survivor beneficiary at retirement while still splitting the community interest in the pension equally. On attorney fees, Irina argued she should have received an amount matching what Donovan spent. The trial court noted both sides spent substantial sums, that some of Irina's spending reflected her "stated intent to drag this case out for her financial advantage," but that there was a significant income disparity, and awarded her $10,000. The appeals court found no abuse of discretion in declining to award more. Finally, on the bias claim, the appeals court held Irina had not shown the judge relied on information from outside the case or displayed the kind of "deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible" required to establish bias.