SPRENGER VS. SPRENGER (ALIMONY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

Per Curiam. Stock acquired before marriage is separate property, NRS 123.130(2); transmutation from separate to community property must be shown by clear and convincing evidence, and the appearance of a spouse's signature as 'witness' or shareholder on business documents, without more, is not such evidence, Schulman v. Schulman, 92 Nev. 707, 558 P.2d 525 (1976). The Court affirmed the finding that the nursery stock was the husband's separate property and rejected the wife's request for a greater-than-fifty-percent share of community property under McNabney v. McNabney, 105 Nev. 652, 782 P.2d 1291 (1989), in light of its alimony holding. Alimony is within the district court's discretion but must be 'just and equitable,' having regard to the conditions in which the parties will be left, NRS 125.150(1)(a). The Court reiterated the seven factors from Fondi v. Fondi, 106 Nev. 856, 802 P.2d 1264 (1990): (1) the wife's career prior to marriage; (2) the length of the marriage; (3) the husband's education during the marriage; (4) the wife's marketability; (5) the wife's ability to support herself; (6) whether the wife stayed home with the children; and (7) the wife's award besides child support and alimony. Weighing these - a nearly 22-year marriage, the wife age 44, having given up nursing, with poor marketability, and holding only a minority, noncontrolling partnership interest carrying no right to income - the Court held the $1,500-per-month, two-year award an abuse of discretion and remanded to increase and extend the award so the wife could live 'as nearly as fairly possible to the station in life she enjoyed before the divorce' for life or until remarriage or substantial improvement in her circumstances, Heim v. Heim, 104 Nev. 605, 763 P.2d 678 (1988). The coin-collection award and the $10,000 attorney's-fee award, NRS 125.150(3), were affirmed.

In plain language

Barbara and Henry 'By' Sprenger married in 1970 and divorced in 1991 after nearly 22 years. Barbara had been a licensed practical nurse but gave up her career to raise the couple's two children, later earning 90 college credits. By owned stock (acquired before the marriage) in what became Moana Lane Nursery, a thriving business paying him about $100,000 a year. Barbara argued the nursery had become community property and that she deserved more. The Nevada Supreme Court disagreed on that point: the stock was acquired before marriage and was therefore separate property, and her signature as a 'witness' or shareholder on some business documents, without more, was not the clear and convincing evidence needed to show the property had been converted (transmuted) to community property. But the Court agreed with Barbara that her alimony award - $1,500 a month for a maximum of two years - was an abuse of discretion. Applying the seven alimony factors it had drawn from Fondi, the Court emphasized the long marriage, Barbara's age (44), her giving up nursing, and that her largest property award was a minority partnership interest from which she had no right to receive income. The Court remanded with instructions to increase and extend the alimony so Barbara could live as nearly as fairly possible to the standard of living she enjoyed before the divorce, for life or until she remarried or her finances substantially improved.