LOCKETT VS. LOCKETT (DIVORCE PROPERTY & ALIMONY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

Per Curiam. On the husband's appeal from the community-property provisions of a divorce decree, the court modified and, as modified, affirmed. The husband contended the court awarded roughly two-thirds of the community estate to the wife without due regard to the factors in NRS 125.150. Deficiencies in the record defeated the contention: the trial was unreported, the parties agreed to supply the record by an agreed statement of facts supplemented by a district court order settling disputed facts, and the trial court declined to settle any facts because its recollection was indistinct; from the agreed facts and minute entries nothing showed the court failed to consider the pertinent factors, so no abuse of discretion appeared. The husband's objection that the trial setting violated District Court Rule 11(5) was waived because he proceeded to trial without protest. Finally, the written decree's omission of a conceded community automobile (a Pontiac) was mere oversight, the minute order showing the court intended to award it to the husband; the court therefore modified the decree to award the 1956 Pontiac to the husband rather than remand. Affirmed as modified, with costs to respondent.

In plain language

The husband appealed the part of a divorce decree that divided the couple's community property, arguing the court gave too much to the wife (about two-thirds to her, one-third to him) and abused its discretion. Under Nevada law, a court must divide community property in a way that is just and equitable, considering things like the merits of the parties, the situation they will be left in, who acquired the property, and the needs of the children. The husband's appeal ran into a basic problem: the record was inadequate. The trial had not been recorded, and the parties agreed to reconstruct the record using an agreed statement of facts supplemented by a court order settling any disputed facts. But the trial court refused to settle any facts because it could not clearly remember them. With only the agreed facts and minute entries to go on, there was nothing to show the court had failed to consider the proper factors, so the husband could not demonstrate an abuse of discretion. The court also rejected the husband's complaint that the case was set for trial in violation of a local court rule requiring five days' notice: the record did not show he ever objected, so by going to trial without protest he waived any notice problem. Finally, the husband pointed out that the written decree failed to dispose of a community-property car (a Pontiac). The court found this was just an oversight - the minute order showed the judge meant to give the car to the husband. Rather than send the case back, the Supreme Court simply modified the decree to award the 1956 Pontiac to the husband, and, as modified, affirmed the decree with costs to the wife.