PETERSEN VS. PETERSEN (DIVORCE PROPERTY & ALIMONY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court affirmed a money judgment entered against the husband for the balance owed on the encumbrances against the former community residence as of the date of foreclosure. Under the divorce decree, the husband was obligated to pay the encumbrances of record in the manner reflected by the loan documents; the wife's remarriage would only have reduced his monthly payment, and only her sale or disposal of the property would have terminated his obligation. A foreclosure resulting from the husband's own default was not a 'sale or disposal' by the wife. NRS 125.180(1) authorizes the district court, where a spouse defaults in paying a sum required by a divorce judgment, to direct entry of judgment for the amount of the arrearage; because the property was lost through the husband's default and it had become impossible to require him to clear the encumbrances, entry of judgment for the net principal balance due at foreclosure was proper. Cf. Reed v. Reed, 88 Nev. 329, 497 P.2d 896 (1972); Folks v. Folks, 77 Nev. 45, 359 P.2d 92 (1961). The husband's contention that the 'less interest' language was too ambiguous to enforce failed because that language inured only to his benefit, leaving him not an aggrieved party under NRAP 3A. Affirmed.

In plain language

In a 1963 divorce, the wife received custody of three children, the family home, child support and alimony, and the husband was ordered to pay off the mortgage ('encumbrances') on the home at $167 per month. The decree said that if the wife remarried, the husband could pay a smaller monthly amount, and that if she 'sold or disposed of' the house, his obligation to pay off the mortgage would end. His payments were later reduced. In 1966 the wife stopped making the house payments (the decree had placed the duty to keep the mortgage current on the husband), the home went into foreclosure, and it was sold at a trustee's sale in 1967, leaving the wife with nothing from it. On rehearing, a judge found the wife had lost her equity through no fault of her own but because the husband failed to meet his obligations, and that she had not 'sold or disposed of' the house in the way the decree contemplated. The court entered a judgment against the husband equal to the mortgage balance at foreclosure, less interest. The husband appealed only that money judgment. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed. His duty under the decree was to pay off the mortgage; the wife's remarriage would only have reduced his monthly payment, not eliminated the total obligation, and only her own sale or disposal of the house would have ended it - a foreclosure caused by his own default was not such a 'disposal.' Under NRS 125.180(1), when a spouse defaults on a sum required by a divorce judgment, the court may enter judgment for the arrearage; because the house was lost through his default and it had become impossible to require him to clear the mortgage, entering judgment for the net balance was proper. His argument that the phrase 'less interest' was too vague to enforce failed, because that language operated only to his benefit, so he was not an aggrieved party as to it.