SHYDLER VS. SHYDLER (ALIMONY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

Shearing, J. Divorce decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion, and rulings supported by substantial evidence will not be disturbed, Williams v. Waldman, 108 Nev. 466, 836 P.2d 614 (1992); but alimony must be 'just and equitable,' NRS 125.150(1)(a), and is evaluated under the seven Sprenger factors, Sprenger v. Sprenger, 110 Nev. 855, 878 P.2d 284 (1994). The Court held that post-divorce property-equalization payments do not serve as a substitute for alimony, cf. Wolff v. Wolff, 112 Nev. 1355, 929 P.2d 916 (1996): a community-property award divides property to which the recipient is entitled as a matter of law, NRS 123.220-.225; 125.150(1)(b); McNabney v. McNabney, 105 Nev. 652, 782 P.2d 1291 (1989), whereas alimony is an equitable award meeting the former spouse's post-divorce needs, two primary purposes of which (in marriages of significant length) are to narrow large gaps in post-divorce earning capacity and to allow the recipient to live 'as nearly as fairly possible to the station in life enjoyed before the divorce.' Because the district court compelled the wife to use her community-property share for support while the husband retained the income-producing community property, and treated interim (pre-divorce) support - largely applied to community expenses - as a substitute, denial of alimony was an abuse of discretion; the Court remanded for a fair award, at least for a rehabilitation period. The Court further held the district court exceeded its authority by placing community-property collectibles in trust for the parties' son: no statute authorizes placing community assets in trust for a minor child unless established for the child's support, and these items were not set aside for support, Bailey v. Bailey, 86 Nev. 483, 471 P.2d 220 (1970); NRS 125.510. It reversed and remanded for valuation and equal division of that property, directed the district court to reconcile inconsistent valuations of Aztec, and affirmed the finding that a valid contract transmuted Lot 54 into the husband's separate property.

In plain language

Tom and Margaret Shydler divorced after a seventeen-year marriage. Tom built a successful construction company (Aztec) and generally earned over $100,000 a year; Margaret ran a struggling insurance company (Alamo) and had far lower earning potential. The trial court denied Margaret any spousal support, reasoning that she had already received pre-divorce support and would receive monthly installment payments to equalize the division of community property. The Nevada Supreme Court held this was an abuse of discretion. Property-equalization payments are not a substitute for alimony: they serve different purposes. A community-property award divides what a spouse already owns as a matter of law, while alimony meets a former spouse's post-divorce needs and, in longer marriages, narrows large gaps in earning capacity and helps the recipient live as nearly as possible to the pre-divorce standard of living. The trial court effectively forced Margaret to spend down her share of community property for support while Tom kept the income-producing assets - which was unfair. Interim pre-divorce payments used for community expenses also do not bar post-divorce alimony. The Court remanded for a fair alimony award, at least for a rehabilitation period. The Court also reversed a provision placing Tom's collectibles (toy soldiers, a library, lithographs) in a trust for the couple's son, holding there is no authority to place community assets in trust for a child unless it is for the child's support. It affirmed that a valid contract transmuted 'Lot 54' into Tom's separate property.