RUTAR VS. RUTAR (DIVORCE PROPERTY & ALIMONY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The amount of alimony is within the district court's sound discretion, limited by NRS 125.150, which requires an award that is just and equitable, having regard to the respective merits of the parties and the condition in which they will be left by the divorce. Heim v. Heim, 104 Nev. 605, 608, 763 P.2d 678, 679-80 (1988). The Buchanan v. Buchanan, 90 Nev. 209, 215, 523 P.2d 1, 5 (1974), factors provide a useful but non-exhaustive guide, and the primary focus is the justness and equity of the parties' respective post-divorce conditions. Where both spouses contributed substantially to a lengthy marriage but are left with vastly disparate earning capacities, an inadequate rehabilitative-alimony award constitutes an abuse of discretion. Johnson v. Steel, Inc., 94 Nev. 483, 489-90, 581 P.2d 860, 864 (1978); Heim. After an eighteen-year marriage in which Cvetka was the primary caretaker of four children, had been out of the workforce for years, received no income-producing property, faced difficulty completing an undergraduate degree, and had limited earning capacity, the district court's award of $1,000 per month for three and one-half years was inadequate given the parties' disparate post-divorce circumstances. The court increased the award to $1,700 per month, extended its duration to eight years, directed the district court to retain jurisdiction over the alimony award and the property division, and held that the need for an attorney-fee award was obviated by the increase. Reversed and modified.

In plain language

Cvetka and Marjan Rutar married in 1971 and divorced after eighteen years. Both trained as dental technicians in Yugoslavia, but Marjan received advanced training in Switzerland and built a dental laboratory grossing over $300,000 a year, with personal income around $150,000. Cvetka worked full time in the lab for about five years, then spent roughly fifteen years primarily as a homemaker, raising the couple's two children and Marjan's two children from a prior marriage. At divorce, the court divided the property roughly equally, awarded Cvetka $1,000 per month in "rehabilitative" alimony for three and one-half years plus child support, and required her to eventually pay half the upkeep on the house and condominium. Cvetka appealed, arguing the alimony was too low and too short. The Nevada Supreme Court agreed. Alimony must be "just and equitable," considering the parties' respective merits and the condition each will be left in after divorce (NRS 125.150). Comparing prior cases (Johnson v. Steel and Heim v. Heim), the court found a large disparity: Cvetka, then forty-five, with limited skills, difficulty with English, and no income-producing property, would be living on under $24,000 a year, while Marjan would keep roughly $130,000 a year after payments. The court increased her alimony to $1,700 per month, extended it to eight years, and directed the district court to retain jurisdiction over the alimony award and property division. It held that an attorney-fee award was unnecessary given the increase. Reversed and modified.