SHANE VS. SHANE (DIVORCE PROPERTY & ALIMONY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

Mowbray, J. On the husband's appeal from a decree granting the wife a divorce for extreme cruelty and awarding her $16,500 'in lieu of all her community property rights, and as and for alimony,' the court affirmed. (1) Sufficiency of the cruelty evidence: quoting Ormachea v. Ormachea, 67 Nev. 273, 217 P.2d 355 (1950), the court reaffirmed that it relies to a great extent on the trial judge's impressions of the witnesses and will reverse only when there is no substantial evidence to support the finding; the determination of the effect of cruel treatment on the injured spouse's health rests on the trial judge's valuation of that spouse's character, refinement, and sensibilities, and the court may properly infer that the trial judge found the requisite injury or reasonable apprehension of injury to health. (2) Property/alimony award: courts are authorized by NRS 125.150 to award alimony and make such disposition of community property as is just and equitable, and the appellate court will not interfere absent a showing on the entire record that the trial court abused its discretion. Substantial evidence supported the award, including that the husband had community funds transferred to his accountant to remove them from the wife for his own use, that the wife executed a note the husband agreed to pay, and that the wife had contributed roughly $400 per month to living expenses while the husband contributed nothing despite a $1,600 monthly salary. Finding no abuse of discretion, the court affirmed the $16,500 award (with interest at 7 percent from February 17, 1967) and the unchallenged counsel-fee award.

In plain language

In this divorce, the trial court granted the wife a divorce for extreme cruelty and awarded her $16,500 'in lieu of all her community property rights, and as and for alimony.' The court found that the husband's cruelty made the wife so nervous that she lost all her hair and that her health would be irreparably harmed if the marriage continued. The husband appealed. He argued there was not enough evidence that his conduct actually injured his wife's health or made her fear for it, and that the $16,500 award was wrong. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed. On the cruelty issue, it relied on the long-standing rule that the trial judge, who sees and hears the witnesses, is in the best position to judge the effect of cruelty on the injured spouse's health, and that an appellate court will reverse only when there is no substantial evidence to support the finding. On the money award, the court explained that Nevada law lets a trial court award alimony and divide community property in a way that is just and equitable, and that its decision will not be disturbed unless the record shows an abuse of discretion. Here the record showed the husband had funneled community money through his accountant to keep it from his wife, that the wife had contributed heavily to the household while the husband contributed nothing despite a good salary, so the $16,500 award was fair. The court affirmed, with interest on the award and the wife's counsel fees.