SMITH VS. SMITH (DIVORCE PROPERTY & ALIMONY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The wife moved under NRCP 60(b)(2) to set aside the decree based on fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct. The court noted that a Rule 60(b) ruling is affirmed if sufficient evidence in the record supports it (Westside Chtr. Serv. v. Gray Line Tours, 99 Nev. 456, 664 P.2d 351 (1983); Norris v. Phillips, 86 Nev. 619, 472 P.2d 347 (1970)). The wife's affidavit and the daughter's corroboration that the husband physically abused the wife into signing the divorce papers were uncontradicted - the husband denied only that the property division resulted from threats and did not deny the beating the day before the documents were signed. Because no evidence contradicted the wife's account, the district court had no evidentiary basis to deny relief. The court reversed and remanded so the community property could be ascertained and divided justly and equitably under NRS 125.150.

In plain language

Jay Smith filed for divorce on May 10, 1984, and his wife Patsy answered the same day, representing herself. The divorce was granted the very next day, May 11, 1984. Out of what Patsy estimated to be about $1.2 million in community property, she received only the Las Vegas home, two vehicles, an acre of land in Utah, her personal effects, and $50,000 in alimony - roughly 15 percent of the marital estate. Six months later, Patsy moved to set aside the divorce decree, alleging fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct. In a sworn affidavit, she stated that two days before the decree was entered, Jay had come home and physically abused her until she agreed to sign the papers needed to obtain the divorce. Their daughter, Mika, corroborated this. Jay did not deny that the abusive incident happened; he only denied that the property division itself was obtained through threats. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed the denial of Patsy's motion. It explained that a motion to set aside a judgment for fraud is reviewed to see whether the record contains enough evidence to support the trial court's decision. Here, nothing in the record contradicted Patsy's and Mika's account of the beating that preceded her signing the documents. Because there was no evidence to contradict her allegations, the district court had no evidentiary basis to deny the motion. The case was sent back so the community property could be identified and divided justly and equitably.