PATEL VS. PATEL (DIVORCE)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The Court (per curiam) affirmed a divorce judgment challenged on jurisdiction, child support, and proof of grounds. On jurisdiction, the wife contended the husband failed to satisfy the residency requirement of NRS 125.020 (NRS 125.020(1)(e) requires six weeks' residence before suit). The Court reiterated that a plaintiff's residence in a divorce action is a question of fact for the trial court, Woodruff v. Woodruff, 94 Nev. 1, 573 P.2d 206 (1978); Boisen v. Boisen, 85 Nev. 122, 451 P.2d 363 (1969), and found substantial evidence supporting the finding of the husband's bona fide residence, Baker v. Baker, 76 Nev. 127, 350 P.2d 140 (1960). On child support, the trial court ordered the husband to pay $75 per child per month for the two children. NRS 125.140 confers broad discretionary powers on the district court in determining support of minor children, and its exercise will not be disturbed absent a clear case of abuse. Gilbert v. Warren, 95 Nev. 296, 594 P.2d 696; Nichols v. Nichols, 91 Nev. 479, 537 P.2d 1196 (1975); Culbertson v. Culbertson, 91 Nev. 230, 533 P.2d 768 (1975); Buchanan v. Buchanan, 90 Nev. 209, 523 P.2d 1 (1974). The record disclosed no abuse: the trial court reviewed extensive documentation of the husband's financial ability and considered that the children were covered by his medical and hospitalization insurance. Finally, the contention that incompatibility was not proved was without merit, as the record was replete with instances evidencing incompatibility. The judgment was affirmed, and respondent's motion for attorney's fees and costs was denied.

In plain language

In this divorce case the trial court dissolved the marriage and made related orders. The wife, Manguben Patel, appealed, making three arguments: that the Nevada court had no power to grant the divorce, that the child-support amount was set improperly, and that the grounds for divorce were never proved. The Nevada Supreme Court rejected all three and affirmed. On the court's power, the wife argued the husband had not met Nevada's residency requirement (living in the state six weeks before filing). The court explained that where a person actually resides is a question of fact for the trial judge, and there was solid evidence supporting the finding that the husband was a genuine Nevada resident. On child support, the court had ordered the husband to pay $75 per month for each of the two children. Nevada law gives trial judges broad discretion over child support, and their decisions are not disturbed unless there is a clear abuse. The court found no abuse: the trial judge had reviewed detailed documentation of the husband's finances and had taken into account that the children were covered by the husband's medical and hospitalization insurance. Finally, the court easily rejected the claim that the grounds (incompatibility) were not proved, noting the record was full of evidence of incompatibility. The judgment was affirmed.