REED VS. REED (CHILD SUPPORT)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court reviewed a district court order entered on the wife's NRS 125.180 motion to reduce child support arrearages to judgment. The district court is vested with discretionary power to order entry of judgment for arrearages resulting from a husband's default in child support. NRS 125.180; Folks v. Folks, 77 Nev. 45, 359 P.2d 92 (1961). Because the appellant filed neither a transcript of the hearing nor a narrative statement of the testimony, the court applied the settled rule that it must assume the evidence supported the trial judge's determination - here, that only $11,303.75 had accrued and was owing, without interest. Meakin v. Meakin, 88 Nev. 25, 492 P.2d 1304 (1972); Leeming v. Leeming, 87 Nev. 530, 490 P.2d 342 (1971). Because the district court has discretion to enter judgment for all or none of the claimed arrearages under NRS 125.180, the court held it follows that liquidation of any arrearage judgment may be scheduled in any manner the district court deems proper; the $50-per-month enforcement limitation was therefore not error. The court noted its prior approval of a $25-per-month payoff of child support arrears in Chesler v. Chesler, 87 Nev. 335, 486 P.2d 1198 (1971). The denial of attorney's fees and costs, also discretionary under NRS 125.180, was affirmed for the same reason - absent a transcript, the court presumed the evidence justified the trial court's determination that such an award was not warranted. Meakin, supra; Leeming, supra. Affirmed.

In plain language

The Reeds divorced in Nevada in 1962. Their property settlement gave the mother custody of the four children and required the father to pay $75 per week in child support. The father fell behind, and in 1971 the mother went back to court under Nevada's arrearage statute (NRS 125.180) to collect what she said was $13,285.75 in unpaid support, plus costs and attorney fees. After a hearing, the trial judge entered judgment for the mother, but only for $11,303.75, ordered it collected at no more than $50 per month, and denied her any attorney fees or costs. The mother appealed, asking the Nevada Supreme Court to give her the full original amount plus interest, payable immediately, along with fees and costs. A key problem for the mother's appeal was that she never filed a transcript of the hearing (or an approved written substitute) with the Supreme Court. Because the appellate court could not see what evidence the trial judge heard, it had to assume the evidence supported the judge's conclusions - that only $11,303.75 was actually owed, that it should be paid off gradually, and that no attorney fees were warranted. The court explained that the arrearage statute gives the trial judge broad discretion: the judge can enter judgment for all, some, or none of the claimed arrears, and can set up any reasonable payment schedule. The court had previously approved a $25-per-month payoff of child support arrears in an earlier case, so a $50-per-month schedule here was well within the judge's power. Attorney fees and costs were likewise discretionary. With no transcript to show otherwise, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order.