MCINNIS VS. MCINNIS (CHILD SUPPORT)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court affirmed the denial of a mother's motion to increase child support. Jurisdiction to modify rested on NRS 125.140(2) (Cavell v. Cavell), and review is for abuse of discretion (Edwards v. Edwards). Applying the Goodman v. Goodman, 68 Nev. 484, 236 P.2d 305 (1951), guides - sufficiency of the original award, the father's ability to pay, and a pertinent change of circumstances - the court found no abuse where the mother's income had nearly doubled, her expense estimate had decreased, and the record showed the father's income had decreased (an asserted 1976 increase not being supported in the record, per Fenkell v. Fenkell). The court rejected the contention that specifying that support be "deemed made" from the proceeds of a community-property promissory note awarded to the mother relieved the father of his support obligation; NRS 125.150(1) directs the court, in disposing of community property, to account for burdens imposed for the benefit of the children, and the unappealed original judgment merely specified a method of payment. Denial of attorney's fees was also affirmed.

In plain language

Mary and William McInnis divorced after eight years. Mary got custody of their two young children and $150 per month in child support. The decree provided that, for a period, the support would be "deemed made" out of Mary's share of the proceeds of a promissory note (community property awarded to her), after which William would resume paying directly. A year later, Mary asked the court to increase the support; the district court denied her motion in all respects, and she appealed. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed. It explained that modifying child support is within the district court's discretion, guided by factors like the adequacy of the original award, the father's ability to pay more, and any real change in circumstances. Here there was no abuse of discretion: Mary's own income had nearly doubled, her claimed expenses were actually lower than at the time of the divorce, and the only evidence of the father's income showed a decrease. The court also rejected Mary's argument that the note-proceeds arrangement improperly relieved the father of his support duty - the decree did not eliminate his obligation, it just specified a method of payment tied to community property that had been awarded to her. Finally, the denial of her request for attorney's fees was upheld.