WALDMAN VS. WALDMAN (DIVORCE PROPERTY & ALIMONY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The Court (per curiam) reversed portions of a divorce decree entered after a bench trial, sustaining several assignments of error while leaving the decree of divorce intact. First, the record did not support the determination that the parties' home and a 2.5-acre parcel of unimproved realty were community property. Title to each was held in joint tenancy, and even accepting arguendo that the properties were purchased with community funds or on a community obligation, that fact alone 'is insufficient to rebut the presumption created by the form of the deed[s].' Peters v. Peters, 92 Nev. 687, 691, 557 P.2d 713, 715 (1976). Second, no evidence properly in the record supported the finding of a community debt of some $130,000 owed to respondent's parents; that finding was set aside under NRCP 52(a). Third, nothing in the decree indicated the court considered the factors set forth in Buchanan v. Buchanan, 90 Nev. 209, 215, 523 P.2d 1, 5 (1974), in declining to award any alimony to appellant. See Johnson v. Steel, Inc., 94 Nev. 483, 581 P.2d 860 (1978). The Court reversed the judgment except insofar as it granted appellant an absolute and final decree of divorce and remanded for retrial of the remaining issues.

In plain language

In this divorce case the trial court, sitting without a jury, granted the husband a divorce and divided the couple's property. The husband appealed, arguing the court made several mistakes, and the Nevada Supreme Court agreed with a number of them. First, the couple's home and a two-and-a-half-acre parcel of undeveloped land were both held in joint tenancy, which under Nevada law creates a presumption that the property is owned in a particular way based on how the deed reads. The trial court had treated these as community property. The Supreme Court held that even if the properties had been bought with community money, that fact by itself is not enough to overcome the presumption created by the form of the deeds. So the finding that these were community property was not supported by the record. Second, the trial court had found that the couple owed a community debt of about $130,000 to the wife's parents. The Supreme Court found there was no evidence properly in the record to support that finding, so it had to be set aside. Third, the trial court denied the husband any alimony without showing that it had considered the factors Nevada courts are required to weigh when deciding alimony. Because of these problems, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment - except for the part granting the divorce itself - and sent the remaining issues back for a new trial.