LOFTON VS. LOFTON

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The panel first addressed appellate jurisdiction over the divorce decree. Because the August 11, 2022 order adjudicating the parties' outstanding life insurance issues constituted the final judgment in the divorce matter, and Donte did not timely appeal from it, the court held it lacked jurisdiction over his challenges to the decree's alimony and attorney-fee awards. The court cited NRAP 4(a)(1) (30-day deadline for filing a notice of appeal after service of written notice of entry), Lee v. GNLV Corp., 116 Nev. 424, 426, 996 P.2d 416, 417 (2000) (defining a final judgment), and Healy v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft, 103 Nev. 329, 331, 741 P.2d 432, 433 (1987) (an untimely notice of appeal fails to invoke appellate jurisdiction). It dismissed that portion of the appeal. On the motion to modify alimony, the court applied abuse-of-discretion review, quoting Davitian-Kostanian v. Kostanian, 139 Nev., Adv. Op. 27, 534 P.3d 700, 705 (2023): "This court reviews district court decisions concerning divorce proceedings, such as spousal support, for an abuse of discretion." The court further noted it "will not disturb the district court's rulings if they are supported by substantial evidence, which is that which a sensible person may accept as adequate to sustain a judgment." Under NRS 125.150(11)(b), a paying spouse "may, upon changed circumstances, file a motion to modify the order," and under NRS 125.150(8) the district court may modify periodic alimony upon a finding of changed circumstances, analyzing "any factors the court considers relevant, including changes to the income of the spouse who is ordered to pay alimony" (Davitian-Kostanian). Applying that framework, the court observed that Donte's 2021 tax returns and FDFs, which showed his income rose substantially during 2022, were before the district court. The court declined to second-guess the district court's resolution of conflicting evidence, citing Ellis v. Carucci, 123 Nev. 145, 152, 161 P.3d 239, 244 (2007). Critically, although Donte filed a transcript request form, he did not provide the appellate court with the hearing transcript as required for pro se litigants under NRAP 9(b)(1)(B). The panel noted the supreme court had issued Donte a notice specifically citing NRAP 9(b)(1)(B). Absent the transcript, the court presumed it supported the district court's findings, citing Cuzze v. Univ. & Cmty. Coll. Sys. of Nev., 123 Nev. 598, 603, 172 P.3d 131, 135 (2007). The court therefore concluded substantial evidence supported the district court's income findings and its denial of modification, and found no abuse of discretion. As to the order reducing arrears to judgment, the court held Donte presented no argument concerning that decision and thus waived any challenge, citing Powell v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 127 Nev. 156, 161 n.3, 252 P.3d 668, 672 n.3 (2011).

In plain language

Donte and Carmen Lofton married in 2012. In 2020, Carmen filed for divorce and asked the court to divide their shared property and award her alimony (spousal support - money one spouse pays the other after divorce). After a trial, the district court entered a divorce decree that divided the property and ordered Donte to pay Carmen $750 per month in alimony for 36 months. A separate order entered on August 11, 2022, resolving a dispute over insurance policies, was the final order in the divorce. In 2022, Donte asked the court to lower his alimony, saying his financial situation had changed. He pointed to periods of unemployment, higher mortgage payments, new financial responsibility for his grandchild and disabled adult son, and large expenses from unrelated criminal court matters, including attorney bills for a charge that could carry a life sentence. He submitted tax returns and financial disclosure forms. His 2021 return showed annual income of $27,405, but his updated disclosures showed rising income - one amended form stated he could earn $142,318.20 if he worked a full year. Carmen opposed the change, arguing that Donte's line of work normally involves brief gaps between projects, that he would likely be rehired soon, and that he actually earned more in 2022 than in 2021. She also asked the court to order Donte to explain why he should not be held in contempt for not paying the required alimony. After a hearing, the district court found that Donte's income had increased substantially - from about $27,000 in 2021 to an annual income of about $142,000 - and concluded he had not shown that lowering his alimony was warranted. The court later entered an order awarding Carmen $6,550 in alimony arrears plus $413.95 in interest, and turned that into a judgment. On appeal, Donte first tried to overturn the original divorce decree's alimony and attorney-fee award. The appeals court said it could not consider that challenge because Donte did not file his appeal within the deadline after the final order in the divorce. When an appeal is filed too late, the court has no power (jurisdiction) to hear it, so that portion of the appeal was dismissed. Donte next argued the court was wrong to deny his request to lower the alimony, saying it misjudged his income and did not properly weigh his other obligations. The appeals court explained that it does not re-decide factual questions when the lower court's decision is supported by adequate evidence. A key problem for Donte was that, although he requested a hearing transcript, he never provided the appeals court with a copy of it. Because the court had no transcript of the hearing where the income evidence and arguments were presented, it presumed the missing transcript supported the district court's findings and could not meaningfully review his challenge. On that basis, the court concluded Donte had not shown the district court abused its discretion. Finally, to the extent Donte tried to challenge the order turning the arrears into a judgment, the court held he made no actual argument about that decision, so he waived (gave up) any challenge to it. The court affirmed the denial of the modification motion and the arrears judgment.