VASQUEZ, JR. VS. VASQUEZ (FAMILY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The Court of Appeals reviewed both the marital-waste/property-disposition determination and the alimony award. The opinion frames property division under NRS 125.150(1)(b), which requires an equal disposition of community assets and debt absent a "compelling reason" for an unequal disposition, citing Kogod v. Cioffi-Kogod, 135 Nev. 64, 75, 439 P.3d 397, 406 (2019). Dissipation, or "waste," can constitute such a compelling reason. Kogod, 135 Nev. at 75, 439 P.3d at 406; Lofgren v. Lofgren, 112 Nev. 1282, 1283, 926 P.2d 296, 297 (1996). The court quoted Kogod's definition that dissipation "refers to one spouse's use of marital property for a selfish purpose unrelated to the marriage in contemplation of divorce or at a time when the marriage is in serious jeopardy or is undergoing an irretrievable breakdown." Kogod, 135 Nev. at 75-76, 439 P.3d at 406-07. On the threshold property-classification question, the court applied the community-property presumption of NRS 123.220 to the $230,000 deposited in the Chase savings account during the marriage. The district court found Samuel failed to rebut that presumption with credible evidence that the funds were a gift. The court then applied the burden-shifting framework from Kogod, 135 Nev. at 78, 439 P.3d at 408, under which the burden of proving the absence of waste shifts where one spouse demonstrates that the "transactions furthered a purpose inimical to the marriage, that [the other spouse] made them to diminish [that spouse's] community share, or even that they were unusually large withdrawals from community accounts." The district court found Jeannette had shifted the burden by establishing unusually large expenditures ($210,000 over seven months) coupled with Samuel's acknowledged international travel charges with his girlfriend, and that Samuel failed to rebut. The standard of review governed the outcome. Credibility determinations belong to the district court, and the appellate court "will not reweigh credibility on appeal," citing Ellis v. Carucci, 123 Nev. 145, 152, 161 P.3d 239, 244 (2007). The court deferred to the finding that Samuel failed to credibly explain the $210,000 loss and concluded substantial evidence supported the waste finding. The court additionally invoked Cuzze v. Univ. & Cmty. Coll. Sys. of Nev., 123 Nev. 598, 603, 172 P.3d 131, 135 (2007), presuming that the bank and credit card records Samuel failed to include in the appellate record supported the district court's findings. The court rejected Samuel's argument that spending on a post-separation relationship cannot constitute waste, citing the unpublished disposition Edmands v. Edmands, No. 58764, 2012 WL 5851137 (Nev. Nov. 16, 2012), which had offset a community share by community funds spent on a new girlfriend. It also rejected his contentions of no adverse economic impact and no intent to deprive, noting the expenditures occurred after the divorce filing, while the marriage was irretrievably broken. See Kogod, 135 Nev. at 75-76, 439 P.3d at 406-07. The court found no abuse of discretion, citing Eivazi v. Eivazi, 139 Nev. 408, 411, 537 P.3d 476, 482 (Ct. App. 2023). On alimony, the court reviewed for abuse of discretion. Kogod, 135 Nev. at 66, 439 P.3d at 400. Under NRS 125.150(1)(a), a court may award alimony as "just and equitable," and the decision is discretionary but "must consider the eleven factors listed in NRS 125.150(9)." Kogod, 135 Nev. at 66-67, 439 P.3d at 400-01. Factual findings on those factors must be supported by substantial evidence. Eivazi, 139 Nev. at 426, 537 P.3d at 492. The court recited that alimony is "financial support paid from one spouse to the other whenever justice and equity require it," Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, 116 Nev. 993, 999, 13 P.3d 415, 419 (2000), and may be based on the receiving spouse's need and the paying spouse's ability to pay, or to compensate for economic loss resulting from the marriage and divorce. Kogod, 135 Nev. at 68, 70, 439 P.3d at 401, 403. The district court has broad discretion. Buchanan v. Buchanan, 90 Nev. 209, 215, 523 P.2d 1, 5 (1974). Applying these standards, the court found the district court adequately evaluated the NRS 125.150(9) factors - income disparity, the nearly 28-year marriage, Jeannette's homemaker and teaching roles, Samuel's $100,000 annual income and income-producing property, and each spouse's age, health, work history, and contributions - and that the $2,000-per-month, ten-year award was supported by substantial evidence. See Ellis, 123 Nev. at 149, 161 P.3d at 242; Schwartz v. Schwartz, 126 Nev. 87, 91, 225 P.3d 1273, 1276 (2010). The court declined to reweigh evidence or credibility, citing Grosjean v. Imperial Palace, Inc., 125 Nev. 349, 366, 212 P.3d 1068, 1080 (2009), and Roggen v. Roggen, 96 Nev. 687, 689, 615 P.2d 250, 251 (1980), and found the findings sufficient and acceptable to a reasonable person, citing Williams v. Williams, 120 Nev. 559, 566, 97 P.3d 1124, 1129 (2004).

In plain language

Samuel and Jeannette Vasquez were married in October 1996. In August 2022, Jeannette filed for divorce. Because their children were already adults and there was no custody dispute, the court's job was to divide the couple's property and debts and decide whether Jeannette should receive alimony (regular financial support paid by one former spouse to the other). At an evidentiary hearing (a court session where both sides present testimony and evidence), Jeannette testified that she had mostly been a homemaker raising the children during their nearly 28-year marriage and had worked as a teacher for the last ten years. She earned about $4,333.33 per month as a teacher and received $524.31 per month in disability income from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for chronic heart disease. She asked for $2,000 a month in alimony for fifteen years. A central dispute was about money in Samuel's Chase savings account. According to the records, Samuel had disclosed $230,000 in that account, but a later disclosure showed the balance had dropped to $20,000 over about seven months - a reduction of roughly $210,000. Jeannette argued Samuel had spent this money deliberately so she would not get her share of it. Samuel said he worked as a director at a healthcare company earning $8,333.33 per month and also received $4,250 per month in rental income from a California property that he had not listed on his financial disclosure forms. He testified that the money in the Chase account came from a gift or inheritance from his mother. When asked how he spent $210,000 in seven months, he said he did remodeling projects and paid bills, but he also acknowledged credit card and bank charges for international travel with his girlfriend. The district court did not find Samuel's explanation credible. Because the money had been deposited during the marriage, the court treated it as community property (property belonging to both spouses). The court found Samuel failed to show the money was a gift and failed to credibly explain where the $210,000 went. The court concluded the spending was "marital waste" - using shared property for selfish purposes unrelated to the marriage at a time the marriage was breaking down. To make up for half of the wasted money, the court awarded Jeannette $105,000. The court also awarded Jeannette $2,000 per month in alimony for ten years, after weighing factors such as the length of the marriage, the difference in the spouses' incomes, Jeannette's role as a homemaker and teacher, and Samuel's higher income and income-producing property. On appeal, Samuel argued the waste finding was not supported by the record, that Jeannette suffered no economic harm, that he had no intent to deprive her of her share, and that she did not need alimony. The Court of Appeals rejected these arguments. It explained that appellate courts do not re-weigh witness credibility, that substantial evidence supported the district court's findings, and that Samuel had not even provided the appellate court with the bank and credit card records from the hearing - so the court presumed those records supported the lower court's findings. The Court of Appeals affirmed the divorce decree in full.