MEAKIN VS. MEAKIN (CHILD SUPPORT)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court affirmed the denial of a motion to reduce child support. The appellant's asserted changed circumstances - a health-related inability to practice dentistry, bankruptcy, and reduced income as a hospital orderly - appeared only in his own affidavit, which, being conclusory, was legally insufficient under Green v. Green, 75 Nev. 317, 340 P.2d 586 (1959). Decisively, the appellant failed to provide a hearing transcript or an approved substitute, so the court was required to presume that the evidence supported the trial court's implicit determinations (Leeming v. Leeming, 87 Nev. 530, 490 P.2d 342 (1971); City of Henderson v. Bentonite, Inc., 87 Nev. 188, 483 P.2d 1299 (1971)). Because the record did not establish an abuse of discretion, the judgment was affirmed.

In plain language

A 1970 divorce ordered the husband to pay $750 per month in child support. He later asked the court to reduce that amount, saying his health had deteriorated so he could no longer practice dentistry, that he had filed for bankruptcy, and that he was now working as a hospital orderly earning only $400 per month. The trial court denied the reduction without stating its reasons, and he appealed. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed. It noted that his claims appeared only in his own affidavit and that, under prior Nevada law, such a bare affidavit stating conclusions is legally insufficient. More importantly, he did not provide the Court with a transcript of the hearing (or an approved substitute), so the Court had to presume that the evidence supported the trial court's decision. Because the record did not show any abuse of discretion, the denial stood.