SCHRYVER VS. SCHRYVER (DIVORCE PROPERTY & ALIMONY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

Addressing an issue of first impression in Nevada, the court held that a motion to modify alimony filed within the period of support contemplated by the divorce decree is timely under NRS 125.150(7), even though the payor made the final payment early. NRS 125.150(7) provides that periodic alimony payments that have not accrued at the time a modification motion is filed may be modified upon a showing of changed circumstances, whether or not the court has expressly retained jurisdiction. Because the term of support ran through September 30, 1990, and Virginia filed her motion on September 13, 1990, the motion was timely notwithstanding James's early final payment. The court reasoned that a contrary rule would allow a payor spouse to deprive the court of jurisdiction merely by making advance payments. See Pujals v. Pujals, 414 So. 2d 228 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982). Order dismissing the motion for modification reversed; remanded for further proceedings.

In plain language

Virginia and James Schryver divorced in 1983. The decree, which incorporated the parties' written settlement agreement, required James to pay $1,200 per month in alimony for eight years, with September 1990 being the final month. At the beginning of September 1990, James paid the last month's alimony early, sending a $1,000 check and then a $200 check. On September 13, 1990, Virginia filed a motion to modify the alimony, asking that it be increased and extended for the remainder of her life. The district court dismissed her motion, and both parties assumed the court concluded it lacked jurisdiction because the payments were complete. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed. Under NRS 125.150(7), periodic alimony payments that have not yet "accrued" when a modification motion is filed may be modified upon a showing of changed circumstances. Although James had made the final payment early, the actual term of support ran through September 30, 1990, so Virginia's September 13 motion was filed within the period of support and was timely. Addressing an issue of first impression in Nevada, the court reasoned that holding otherwise would allow a paying spouse to deprive the court of jurisdiction simply by making advance payments. It reversed the order dismissing the motion and remanded for further proceedings.