MORRIS VS. MORRIS (DIVORCE PROPERTY & ALIMONY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

Collins, J. On the wife's appeal from a decree granting the husband a divorce without an alimony award, the court affirmed. The husband's 1965 complaint (after a roughly ten-year separation) alleged Nevada residency, mental cruelty, no minor children, and no community property. The wife, personally served in another jurisdiction, answered denying the allegations and seeking a $500 attorney's fee, but pleaded no facts showing her need or the husband's ability to pay, did not pray for alimony, and filed no counterclaim. When the wife's counsel cross-examined the husband about money formerly sent to the wife, the court sustained a general objection as irrelevant because alimony had not been requested; counsel accepted the ruling and made no effort to amend the pleadings or offer proof. (1) Although NRCP 15 permits liberal amendment and NRCP 54(c) directs that every final judgment (except against a defaulting party) grant the relief to which the prevailing party is entitled even if not demanded (Magill v. Lewis, 74 Nev. 381, 333 P.2d 717 (1958)), those rules are not without limitation; the record showed no effort, direct or indirect, to place the issue of alimony before the court in a meaningful way, and courts cannot be required to be clairvoyant. (2) The general-objection rule under NRCP 46 concerns preservation of a point for appeal when an objection is overruled, not the trial court's ability to sustain an objection; where evidence is clearly objectionable and admissible under no theory, such an objection is proper, and counsel's acquiescence failed to preserve the point. Affirmed.

In plain language

After a long marriage and a roughly ten-year separation, the husband sued for divorce in 1965, stating there were no minor children and no community property. The wife, served in another state, hired a lawyer and filed an answer denying his claims and asking for a $500 attorney's fee. But she never alleged that she needed support or that her husband could afford to pay it, never asked the court for alimony, and filed no counterclaim. At trial, the wife's lawyer questioned the husband about money he had sent her in the past. The husband's lawyer objected, and the judge sustained the objection, noting alimony had not been requested. The wife's lawyer accepted the ruling, said he had not realized alimony was not sought, and did not try to amend the papers or offer any proof about alimony. The court granted the husband a divorce and gave the wife no relief. She appealed. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed. It held that the trial court did not err in granting a divorce without alimony where the wife never put the issue before the court - she pleaded no facts about her need or her husband's ability to pay, never prayed for alimony, and made no effort to raise it. While Nevada's rules allow liberal amendment of pleadings and let courts grant relief a party is entitled to even without a specific demand, courts are not required to be clairvoyant about issues counsel never meaningfully raises. The court also held the judge could properly sustain the general objection at trial.