PIERCE VS. PIERCE

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The Court reviews child support determinations for abuse of discretion, and underlying factual findings must be supported by substantial evidence. Hargrove v. Ward, 138 Nev., Adv. Op. 14, 506 P.3d 329, 331 (2022); Rivero v. Rivero, 125 Nev. 410, 430, 216 P.3d 213, 227 (2009), overruled on other grounds by Romano v. Romano, 138 Nev. 1, 5, 501 P.3d 980, 983 (2022). Jurisdiction over QDRO order. The Court held it lacked jurisdiction to review the order granting Brianna's countermotion to enforce the decree's QDRO provisions because Steven did not designate that order in his notice of appeal and the time to appeal it had expired. See NRAP 3(c)(1)(B); NRAP 4(a)(1); Reno Newspapers, Inc. v. Bibb, 76 Nev. 332, 335, 353 P.2d 458, 459 (1960). Child support recalculation. The Court found an abuse of discretion in the GMI calculations because the parties' financial disclosure forms and testimony showed Steven receives 26 bi-weekly paychecks and Brianna receives 24 semi-monthly paychecks; the district court instead computed income from a daily rate of pay, overstating annual and monthly income for both parties. The Court reversed and remanded with instructions to recalculate child support using the parties' actual pay schedules and rates of pay. Given the reversal, the Court declined to reach Steven's arguments regarding offset for support overpaid during pendency, exclusion of Brianna's one-time hiring bonus from gross income, and adjustments under NAC 425.150(1). Health insurance reimbursement / retroactive modification. The Court rejected Steven's argument that ordering reimbursement of approximately $6,500 in health insurance overpayments retroactively modified child support in violation of NRS 125B.140(1)(a). Substantial evidence supported the finding that Steven had been taking more than the court-authorized deduction, and the Court characterized the reimbursement order as enforcement of the existing decree's equal-share allocation of O.P.'s health insurance costs rather than a retroactive modification. Due process. The Court rejected Steven's due process challenge because Brianna requested reimbursement in her countermotion and supplemental briefing, providing Steven "notice and an opportunity to be heard." Callie v. Bowling, 123 Nev. 181, 183, 160 P.3d 878, 879 (2007). Attorney fees. Because the underlying child support order was reversed, the Court vacated the attorney fees award to allow the district court to reconsider fees after recalculating child support.

In plain language

Steven and Brianna Pierce divorced in 2013 and share joint legal and physical custody of their child, O.P. Under the original divorce decree, Steven kept the child on his health insurance and paid Brianna monthly child support, with a discount (called a "deviation") to account for the cost of insuring O.P. In 2022, Steven asked the district court to review child support. Brianna filed her own motion asking for a review as well. The district court recalculated child support and lowered Steven's monthly obligation. It also concluded that Steven had been claiming a larger health insurance deduction than the court had authorized, meaning Brianna had effectively overpaid her share of O.P.'s health insurance for years. The court ordered Steven to repay Brianna nearly $6,500. Finally, the court awarded Brianna attorney fees because she prevailed on two issues. Steven appealed. The Nevada Supreme Court reached several conclusions. First, it said it could not consider Steven's arguments about the QDRO order because Steven did not file a notice of appeal from that order within the 30-day deadline. Appellate courts only review what the appellant actually appealed. Second, the Court agreed with Steven that the district court made a mathematical error in calculating both parents' gross monthly incomes. The district court used a daily rate of pay to extrapolate annual and monthly income, but Steven actually receives 26 paychecks per year (paid every two weeks) and Brianna receives 24 (paid twice a month). The Court held that approach overstated both incomes and produced an erroneous child support figure, so it reversed that portion and told the district court to redo the calculation using the parties' actual pay schedules. Because of this, the Court did not need to address Steven's other arguments about Brianna's hiring bonus, certain adjustments under the child support regulations, or whether Steven should be reimbursed for support he overpaid while the motions were pending. Third, the Court rejected Steven's claim that ordering him to repay Brianna for past health insurance overpayments amounted to a "retroactive modification" of child support, which Nevada law forbids. The Court reasoned that the district court was enforcing the existing decree, which required the parents to share O.P.'s health insurance costs equally. The Court also rejected Steven's due process argument, noting that Brianna had asked for reimbursement in her own filings, so Steven had notice and a chance to respond. That portion of the district court's order was affirmed. Finally, because the underlying child support ruling was being sent back for recalculation, the Court vacated the attorney fees award so the district court can reconsider it after redoing the support calculation.