ROGGEN VS. ROGGEN (DIVORCE PROPERTY & ALIMONY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The Court (per curiam) affirmed a divorce decree confirming a condominium as the wife's separate property and valuing the parties' businesses at $334,641. On the condominium, clear and certain proof is required to rebut the presumption that property acquired during marriage is community property. Burdick v. Pope, 90 Nev. 28, 518 P.2d 146 (1974); Zahringer v. Zahringer, 76 Nev. 21, 348 P.2d 161 (1960); Carlson v. McCall, 70 Nev. 437, 271 P.2d 1002 (1954); Petition of Fuller, 63 Nev. 26, 159 P.2d 579 (1945). The record showed Mr. Roggen told his housekeeper and a former business associate that he had gifted the condominium to Mrs. Roggen, and her claim was supported by his handwritten memorandum and by title being taken in her name only. Whether she produced clear and convincing evidence of a gift sufficient to overcome the presumption was for the trial court, Zahringer, supra, and substantial evidence supported its decision, Kelly v. Kelly, 86 Nev. 301, 468 P.2d 359 (1970). On the business valuation, the Court held appellant's arguments belated because he could have presented at trial the evidence he now sought to bring before the court. Cf. Burr v. Burr, 96 Nev. 480, 611 P.2d 623 (1980). Substantial evidence supported the valuation, and it is not a reviewing court's duty to instruct the trier of fact as to which witnesses, and what portions of their testimony, are to be believed. Carlson v. McCall, supra. The judgment was affirmed.

In plain language

When the Roggens moved to Nevada, they bought a condominium that was put in Mrs. Roggen's name alone. She later filed for divorce, claiming the condominium was her own separate property and asking the court to divide the couple's community property. The trial court agreed the condominium was her separate property and valued the parties' businesses at about $334,641. Mr. Roggen appealed both rulings, arguing the condominium should be treated as community property and that the business valuation relied on outdated records and ignored a declining market. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed. On the condominium, it explained that property bought during a marriage is presumed to be community property, and it takes clear and certain proof to overcome that presumption. Here there was such proof: Mr. Roggen had told his housekeeper and a former business associate that he had given the condominium to his wife as a gift, and his own handwritten note to her, plus the fact that title was in her name only, backed that up. Whether the evidence was clear enough to prove a gift was for the trial court to decide, and there was substantial evidence supporting its decision. On the business valuation, the court held that Mr. Roggen's complaints came too late - he could have presented the evidence he now wanted to offer at trial. Substantial evidence supported the trial court's valuation, and it is not an appellate court's job to tell the trial judge which witnesses or which parts of their testimony to believe. The judgment was affirmed.