SHUGART VS. SHUGART (DIVORCE PROPERTY & ALIMONY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court affirmed a divorce decree challenged as to alimony, child support, and property distribution solely on record-adequacy grounds. Because the trial was unreported, the appellant proceeded under NRAP 10(c), but the statement of the evidence or proceedings was never submitted to the district court for settlement and approval as the rule requires; accordingly, it could not be considered part of the record on appeal. Citing United States v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co., 281 F.2d 698, 701 (1960), the court held that, absent a properly settled record, it was wholly unable to evaluate the assigned errors, and it affirmed. The decision reflects the settled appellate principle that the appellant bears the burden of furnishing an adequate record and that assignments of error which cannot be reviewed on the record presented will not disturb the judgment.

In plain language

The appellant challenged a divorce judgment's awards of alimony and child support and its division of property. The problem was that the trial had not been recorded - there was no court reporter and no transcript. The appellant tried to substitute a written 'statement of the evidence' under an appellate rule (NRAP 10(c)) that lets a party reconstruct what happened at an unreported trial. That rule, however, requires the statement to be submitted to the trial judge for 'settlement and approval' so the judge can confirm it is accurate before it becomes part of the record. That step was never taken here. Without an approved record of what evidence was actually presented, the Nevada Supreme Court said it had no way to judge whether the trial court had made any of the errors the appellant claimed. It therefore affirmed the judgment.