ZAHRINGER VS. ZAHRINGER (DIVORCE PROPERTY & ALIMONY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

By the Court, Pike, J. On the wife's appeal from the portion of a divorce decree awarding certain Firestone stock to the husband as separate property, the court affirmed. Property acquired during coverture is presumed community; the proceeds of the husband's loans from his parents were presumed community (Jones v. Edwards, 49 Nev. 299, 245 P. 292 (1926)), stock purchased with them presumed community (Lake v. Bender, 18 Nev. 361, 4 P. 711 (1884)), and title in the husband's name alone did not affect the presumption (Milisich v. Hillhouse, 48 Nev. 166, 228 P. 307 (1924)). Whether the evidence was clear and convincing enough to rebut the community presumption was a question for the trial court; because the husband had separate funds available and evidence (including a $3,525 cashier's check drawn on separate funds and endorsed to Firestone) indicated they were so used, substantial evidence supported the finding that the stock was separate property (In re Pepper's Estate, 158 Cal. 619, 112 P. 62 (1910)). Under NRS 125.150 and Thorne v. Thorne, 74 Nev. 211, 326 P.2d 729 (1958), with no minor child and no support ordered, the court had no power to distribute the husband's separate property to the wife. Affirmed with costs.

In plain language

The couple married in 1954, and the wife was granted a divorce in 1959 on the ground of extreme cruelty. She appealed only the part of the decree that gave the husband about 30 shares of Firestone stock. The trial court had found the stock was the husband's separate property - purchased during the marriage but with either money he had before the marriage or money he borrowed from his parents on his own credit. Because there was no child and no support ordered, if the stock was separate property, the court had no power to give any of it to the wife. The husband testified he borrowed $3,900 in 1956 and $1,000 in 1957 from his parents to buy the stock, gave them promissory notes, still owed the money, and had pledged some shares to them. But he produced no notes, his parents did not testify, and he could not say what the stock was worth. The legal starting point favored the wife: property bought during a marriage is presumed to be community property, money borrowed during a marriage is presumed community, stock bought with it is presumed community, and putting the stock only in the husband's name does not change that. To win, the husband had to overcome these presumptions with clear and convincing evidence. There was some conflicting evidence - notably a $3,525 cashier's check bought with the husband's separate funds and endorsed over to Firestone - suggesting he actually used separate money, not borrowed money, to buy the stock. Either way, the husband had separate funds available and there was evidence they were used. The Nevada Supreme Court held that whether the evidence was clear and convincing enough to rebut the community-property presumption was a question for the trial court, and there was substantial evidence supporting its finding that the stock was the husband's separate property. It affirmed, with costs to the husband.