NICHOLSON VS. NICHOLSON (CHILD SUPPORT)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

A URESA court may not modify or nullify a preexisting duty of support. Vix v. State of Wisconsin, 100 Nev. 495, 686 P.2d 226 (1984); see also Taylor v. Vilcheck, 103 Nev. 462, 470-71, 745 P.2d 702, 708 (1987) (URESA court cannot increase prospective child support above the amount set in a prior decree). The parties' divorce decree incorporated a property settlement agreement constituting a full and final resolution of support, and the uncontradicted evidence showed the divorce court had declined to impose an interim support obligation under NRS 125B.030 because the custodial parent refused to account for $9,500 in proceeds. The URESA court's subsequent order requiring reimbursement of $3,234 for the separation period therefore modified the prior order and was improper. Reversed. The court expressly declined to decide whether a URESA court has original jurisdiction to impose child support under NRS 125B.030.

In plain language

Hershel and Pamela Nicholson separated in July 1988 and divorced in October 1989. Their divorce decree incorporated a property settlement agreement described as a "full, complete, and final settlement" of all their marital and property rights, including all claims for support. About two months later, Pamela filed a URESA action (a support-enforcement proceeding) in Nye County, seeking "arrearages," meaning back support, for the separation period under NRS 125B.030, which lets a custodial parent recover a reasonable portion of support costs from the other parent. The district court ordered Hershel to reimburse $3,234. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed. The law is clear that a URESA court may not modify or nullify a preexisting duty of support. Here, the divorce decree's property settlement had fully resolved the issue of support, and uncontradicted evidence showed the divorce court had declined to impose interim support during the separation because Pamela had failed to account for $9,500 she received from selling a spa, a satellite dish, and other items. Because support had already been resolved, the URESA court's later imposition of support was an improper modification of the prior order. The court reversed the judgment, expressly declining to decide whether a URESA court has original jurisdiction to impose support under NRS 125B.030.