HEIM VS. HEIM (DIVORCE PROPERTY & ALIMONY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court reversed a $500-per-month alimony award as an abuse of discretion, holding it was not, as a matter of law, 'just and equitable' under NRS 125.150(1) following a 35-year marriage. An appellate court will interfere with a trial court's alimony or property disposition only if the record shows an abuse of discretion. Shane v. Shane, 84 Nev. 20, 22, 435 P.2d 753, 755 (1968). Alimony is wholly a creature of statute. Freeman v. Freeman, 79 Nev. 33, 35, 378 P.2d 264, 265 (1963). NRS 125.150(1) has required, since the 1861 territorial act, that alimony be 'just and equitable,' having regard to the respective merits of the parties and the condition in which they will be left by the divorce; the court construed the 'just and equitable' language to govern alimony as well as property division notwithstanding the statute's semicolon-separated structure. The standard was correctly restated in Krick v. Krick, 76 Nev. 52, 59, 348 P.2d 752, 755 (1960). The court cautioned that the 'matters to be considered'/'Buchanan guidelines' approach (Buchanan v. Buchanan, 90 Nev. 209, 523 P.2d 1 (1974); Johnson v. Steel, Inc., 94 Nev. 483, 581 P.2d 860 (1978)) does not replace the statutory standard; the judge must form a judgment as to what is equitable and just. Applying that standard, the court found the award grossly disproportionate: after paying tax-deductible alimony and living expenses, the husband retained roughly $3,000 per month, while the wife - even assuming $600 monthly earnings - would have about one-fifth of his income and live near the poverty level. The court emphasized the wife's 35-year contribution as homemaker, the husband's degree and enhanced earning capacity gained during the marital partnership, and the principle that a spouse should not pass automatically from prosperity to misfortune (citing In re Marriage of Brantner, 67 Cal. App. 3d 416, 136 Cal. Rptr. 635 (1977), and Orr v. Orr, 458 So. 2d 362 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)). The court reversed and remanded for a new, just and equitable award, noting it need not be limited to the $1,500 per month the wife had requested. The husband's cross-appeal (that awarding the wife the home was a disproportionate division) was dismissed.

In plain language

Loretta and Dr. Heim were married for 35 years. By their agreement, Loretta stayed home as a homemaker and raised the couple's six children while Dr. Heim pursued his career - earning a Ph.D. and becoming chairman of the Computer Science and Electrical Engineering Department at UNLV, earning about $5,600 a month with living expenses under $2,000. The couple's modest property (a small home equity, furniture, two cars, and a retirement fund) was divided fairly, and Loretta did not appeal that. Loretta was 57, had no professional skills, was unemployed, and had never earned more than $600 a month. The trial court awarded her only $500 a month in alimony until death or remarriage. She appealed. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed, holding the $500 award was, as a matter of law, not 'just and equitable.' The court explained that alimony in Nevada is a creature of statute, and the statute (NRS 125.150(1)) has required since territorial days that alimony be 'just and equitable,' having regard to the respective merits of the parties and the condition in which they will be left by the divorce. The court criticized a tendency in earlier cases to reduce this to a mechanical checklist of factors; while those 'matters to be considered' are useful, the judge must actually form a judgment about what is fair and just. Looking at the parties' circumstances, the disparity was stark: after paying the tax-deductible $500 alimony and his living expenses, Dr. Heim had about $3,000 left each month, while Loretta - even if she earned $600 a month - would have only about one-fifth of his income and would live near the poverty level. The court observed that the most valuable product of the marriage was Dr. Heim's degree and earning capacity, gained through the joint efforts of both spouses, and that after a 35-year marriage in which she gave up her own career, Loretta was entitled to a fair return and to live as nearly as possible at the station in life she had enjoyed. The court found an abuse of discretion, reversed, and sent the case back for a new alimony determination, noting the award need not be capped at the $1,500 a month Loretta had requested.