JONES VS. JONES (DIVORCE PROPERTY & ALIMONY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

This brief per curiam opinion affirms a judgment enforcing a cohabitation-termination clause in a court-approved property settlement agreement. The agreement required the husband to pay monthly alimony for ten years or until the wife's death or remarriage, and provided that alimony would cease upon the wife's cohabitation with another man. The husband ceased payments, asserting cohabitation; the wife sued to enforce the agreement; and the district court found she had in fact cohabited as alleged. The sole issue was the sufficiency of the evidence supporting that finding. Reviewing the record, the court held the district court's ruling was amply supported by substantial evidence and therefore could not be disturbed on appeal. Ormachea v. Ormachea, 67 Nev. 273, 217 P.2d 355 (1950). Affirmed. The Honorable David Zenoff, Justice (Retired), was designated to sit in the case.

In plain language

When this couple divorced, they entered a property settlement agreement, approved by the court, requiring the husband to pay the wife alimony in monthly installments for ten years, or until she died or remarried. The agreement also said that if the wife lived with (cohabited with) another man, the alimony payments would stop. The husband stopped paying, claiming the wife was in fact living with another man. The wife then sued to enforce the agreement and get her payments. After hearing the evidence, the district judge sided with the husband, finding that the wife had indeed cohabited with another man as the husband alleged. The only question on appeal was whether there was enough evidence to support the trial judge's finding of cohabitation. The Nevada Supreme Court reviewed the record and concluded the finding was amply supported by substantial evidence. Because a trial court's factual finding that rests on substantial evidence cannot be overturned on appeal, the court affirmed.