THURSTON VS. THURSTON (DIVORCE PROPERTY & ALIMONY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The wife appealed from a decree granting the husband a divorce and dividing the parties' property after a 34-year marriage; she had opposed the divorce and counterclaimed only for separate maintenance. Jurisdiction / residency: The wife contended the husband failed to satisfy the six-weeks residency requirement, NRS 125.020, because the corroboration requirement of NRS 54.010 was not met. The court held the record supported the finding of satisfactory corroboration - a neighbor testified he saw or phoned the husband every day during the six weeks preceding filing - and declined to disturb it under NRCP 52(a). Property distribution: The 'just and equitable' distribution under NRS 125.150 was amply supported by the record. Although the wife complained of the values attributed to certain assets, she offered no different valuation than the husband's proof, which stood unimpeached; she received over $300,000, more than half the parties' property and capable of producing substantial income. Cf. Freeman v. Freeman, 79 Nev. 33, 378 P.2d 264 (1963). Grounds / party to whom divorce granted: The record supported the finding of incompatibility. Under NRS 125.120, where both spouses have committed grounds for divorce, the court may grant a divorce to the party least at fault if both seek a divorce, otherwise to the party seeking the divorce even if most at fault; because the wife sought only separate maintenance and not a divorce, the court was empowered to grant the divorce to the husband even if he were most at fault. Napolitani v. Napolitani, 78 Nev. 323, 372 P.2d 206 (1962). The denial of a new trial (including as to omitted stock the court found undisclosed in good faith) was proper, and arguments raised only in the reply brief without authority were not addressed. Affirmed.

In plain language

Dr. Thurston and his wife were both 57 and had been married 34 years when he filed for divorce in 1969, claiming incompatibility (and later adding one year's voluntary separation). His wife opposed the divorce throughout and, two days before trial, filed a counterclaim for separate maintenance based on his alleged extreme cruelty; she never sought a divorce herself. The trial court granted the divorce to Dr. Thurston and divided the couple's substantial property. The wife appealed, challenging the court's jurisdiction, the property division, and the decision to grant the divorce to her husband. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed on every point. On jurisdiction, the wife argued Dr. Thurston did not adequately prove the required six weeks of Nevada residency because the corroboration requirement was not met. The court disagreed: a neighbor testified he saw or phoned Dr. Thurston every day during the six weeks before filing, which adequately corroborated residency, and the court would not disturb that supported finding. On the property division, the wife complained it was not equitable, but the court found the 'just and equitable' distribution under NRS 125.150 was amply supported by the record. Notably, she offered no different valuation of the assets than her husband did, and she received over $300,000 - more than half of the couple's property - capable of producing substantial income. On who got the divorce, the wife argued it was wrong to grant it to Dr. Thurston because he failed to prove incompatibility and was most at fault. The court held the record supported the finding of incompatibility, and it relied on Nevada's statute (NRS 125.120) providing that when both spouses are at fault but only one seeks a divorce, the court may grant it to the party seeking it even if that party is most at fault. Because the wife sought only separate maintenance, not a divorce, the court could grant the divorce to Dr. Thurston. The denial of her motion for a new trial was likewise proper.