LEVY VS. LEVY (DIVORCE PROPERTY & ALIMONY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The Court (per curiam) affirmed in all respects a divorce decree that declared the parties' settlement agreement valid. The parties married in 1968 and separated in 1976; after Louis filed for divorce, a pre-trial reconciliation attempt led to vacating the trial date (though the action was not withdrawn), during which counsel negotiated a settlement agreement that both parties signed. Louis later left again and filed a supplemental complaint relying on the agreement; Susan's answer asserted condonation based on a resumption of cohabitation. First, substantial evidence supported the findings that there 'was no condonation' and that each party freely, voluntarily, and without fraud, coercion, or duress entered the agreement on the advice of counsel; not being clearly erroneous, those findings would not be disturbed. Fletcher v. Fletcher, 89 Nev. 540, 542, 516 P.2d 103 (1973); Savini Constr. Co. v. A & K Earthmovers, 88 Nev. 5, 7, 492 P.2d 125 (1972). Second, several claims raised for the first time on appeal were waived; a point not urged in the trial court, unless it goes to jurisdiction, is deemed waived and need not be considered on appeal. Britz v. Consolidated Casinos Corp., 87 Nev. 441, 447, 488 P.2d 911 (1971); Hill v. Summa Corp., 90 Nev. 79, 82, 518 P.2d 1094 (1974); Tupper v. Kroc, 88 Nev. 146, 150, 494 P.2d 1275 (1972). Third, the ruling that the Owl Motel was Louis's separate property accorded with Paragraph V(1) of the agreement, as augmented by NRS 111.010 and NRS 111.160. Fourth, the ruling that each party held an undivided separate interest in the Rancho Reno Motel and the Duplex was consistent with Paragraph IX; both properties were acquired in joint tenancy with both parties' participation, and there was no evidence the joint-tenancy property was to be the husband's separate property. Fifth, under NRS 125.150(3), an award of attorney's fees in a divorce is neither automatic nor compulsory but rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, Fletcher, supra, so the denial of the wife's fee request was affirmed.

In plain language

Louis and Susan Levy married in 1968 and separated in 1976. Louis filed for divorce, but shortly before trial the couple tried to reconcile, so the trial was called off - though the divorce case was not dismissed. During this period their lawyers negotiated a written settlement agreement covering property, support, and custody of their four children, and both spouses signed it. Louis later left again and filed an updated complaint relying on the agreement. Susan argued the agreement had been undone because the couple had reconciled and resumed living together (a concept called 'condonation'). The trial court granted the divorce and ruled the settlement agreement was valid. On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed in every respect. It held there was solid evidence supporting the trial court's findings that no condonation occurred and that both spouses signed the agreement freely and voluntarily, without fraud or coercion, on the advice of their own attorneys - so those findings would not be disturbed. The court refused to consider several new arguments Susan raised for the first time on appeal, because a point not raised in the trial court is generally waived. It upheld the trial court's rulings that one property (the Owl Motel) was Louis's separate property under the agreement, and that two other properties (the Rancho Reno Motel and a duplex), held in joint tenancy and acquired with both spouses' participation, were owned by each spouse in undivided separate shares. Finally, it held that awarding attorney's fees in a divorce is discretionary, not automatic, so the denial of Susan's fee request was proper.