WILFORD VS. WILFORD (DIVORCE PROPERTY & ALIMONY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

Per Curiam. In an appeal from a divorce decree awarding spousal support and dividing community property, the court addressed three assignments of error. First, on preliminary support arrearages, the court applied the rule that a district court's factual determination made on conflicting evidence without a jury will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous (Ormachea v. Ormachea, 67 Nev. 273, 217 P.2d 355 (1950)), and affirmed. Second, on alimony, the court held that the district court adequately considered the factors set forth in Buchanan v. Buchanan, 90 Nev. 209, 523 P.2d 1 (1974) - the parties' financial condition, the nature and value of their property, their contributions, the marriage's duration, and each spouse's income, earning capacity, age, health, and ability to labor/earn - and affirmed (cf. Forrest v. Forrest, 99 Nev. 602, 668 P.2d 275 (1983)). Third, on the community-owned corporation, the court reversed the finding of zero value. NRCP 52(a) requires specific findings sufficient to indicate the basis for the court's conclusions (Robison v. Robison, 100 Nev. 668, 691 P.2d 451 (1984)), and shareholders' equity is the ultimate value when valuing the community's interest in a corporation. A financial statement showed net stock value of $105,449, and the husband's equivocal testimony did not constitute substantial evidence of zero shareholder equity. The court reversed and remanded for a proper valuation with a stated basis.

In plain language

Hazel and Olen Wilford married in 1963 and had two sons who were grown by the time they divorced. During the marriage Hazel worked various jobs and served as the sole clerical employee of the couple's construction company. Olen is a licensed general contractor who ran that construction company plus a cabinet and counter business. By the time of the divorce trial Hazel was unemployed and back in school. The trial court awarded Hazel about $4,640 in back preliminary support, alimony of $1,000 a month for two years then $500 a month for two more years, and found the couple's construction company to be worth nothing, giving it entirely to Olen. Hazel appealed three things. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the first two rulings but reversed the third. On the back-support amount, the evidence conflicted, and an appeals court will not disturb a trial judge's factual call based on conflicting evidence unless it is clearly wrong - it was not. On alimony, the trial court's findings showed it had properly weighed the relevant factors (each party's finances, property, contributions, the length of the marriage, and each spouse's income, age, health, and ability to earn), so the alimony award stood. But the court reversed the finding that the construction company was worthless. The trial judge said the business had zero net worth without explaining how he reached that number. Nevada rules require specific findings showing the basis for a decision. Hazel had introduced the company's financial statement showing a net stock value of about $105,449, and the true measure of the community's interest is the shareholders' equity. Olen only offered vague testimony that he did not know if the statement was still accurate. That was not enough to support a zero valuation, so the court sent the valuation issue back for the trial court to properly value the business and explain its reasoning.