Nevada family-law case summaries

Norma and Raymond Newcomb married in 1993 and divorced in 2020 through a stipulated decree - a divorce agreement the parties negotiated and the court approved. The decree treated their Henderson, Nevada home as community property (property belonging jointly to both spouses), gave Norma some lump-sum alimony plus an extra $15,000 "off the top" when the home sold, and split the remaining sale proceeds evenly. The decree also said Norma would list the home for sale herself (to save on realtor fees) and would move out, after which Raymond would have exclusive possession, with Raymond agreeing to cooperate with listing and showing the home. Things did not go smoothly. Raymond changed the locks on the home in August 2020. Norma said this locked her out and prevented her from preparing and listing the home, and that Raymond would not cooperate with a realtor she tried to bring in. Raymond said Norma had moved out of state and never genuinely tried to sell the home. The home was not sold until 2023, after Raymond went to court. In 2023, Raymond asked the court to find that Norma had violated the decree by not listing the home, and he argued that the resulting delay cost him money in mortgage payments that should be taken out of Norma's share of the sale proceeds. Norma responded that Raymond should be held in contempt and should bear the mortgage payments himself, because he was the one in exclusive possession and had locked her out. After a two-day evidentiary hearing spread over several months, the home sold for roughly $575,000. The district court found that it was not possible for Norma to list the home because she had been locked out, and that requiring her to list it would have been "an act of futility and impossibility." The court also noted that the community actually benefited from the delayed sale, because the home's value rose by about $180,000. Even so, the court ordered - without explaining why or citing any legal authority - that $26,929.37 in mortgage principal be deducted from Norma's share of the proceeds and given to Raymond. The Court of Appeals focused on that unexplained deduction. It observed that although the district court made detailed findings about why Norma could not list the home, it made no findings and gave no legal reasoning for making Norma responsible for the entire mortgage principal amount. The appellate court found this especially notable because the original reason Raymond asked for repayment was Norma's supposed deliberate delay - a delay the district court itself had found was actually impossible because of Raymond's actions. Because the order lacked the findings and legal explanation needed for the appellate court to review it, the Court of Appeals reversed the part of the order dealing with the mortgage principal payments, affirmed everything else in the challenged order, and sent the case back to the district court with instructions to explain the legal basis for its ruling on the mortgage principal payments.

Raul and Rosalba Lopez married in May 2014 and have two children. In September 2022, Rosalba filed for divorce. The couple agreed on how to handle custody of their children - they would share joint legal and physical custody, and Rosalba would pay Raul child support. That left only two things for the court to decide: whether Raul should receive alimony (financial support paid by one spouse to the other after divorce), and whether attorney fees and costs should be awarded. At a hearing in September 2023, both Raul and Rosalba testified about their finances. Rosalba works full-time as an operations supervisor at a freight company. She testified that she supports the parties' daughter, J.L., who turned 18 during the case and continued to live with her, and that she covers her own household and medical costs, including treatment for breast cancer and a skin removal surgery that insurance did not cover. Her position was that she could not afford to pay Raul alimony. Raul testified that he has not worked since 2018 and receives Social Security Disability benefits. He said he wanted alimony so he could move out of his parents' home, where he has lived since the separation, and he argued that Rosalba exaggerated her expenses and could afford to pay him. The district court weighed the factors the law requires it to consider for alimony. It found Rosalba's net monthly income (after tax deductions) to be $5,984.27 and her expenses to be $5,477. It found Raul's gross monthly income from Social Security Disability benefits to be $1,856.90 and noted his expenses were limited. The court also noted that Raul had covered his own living expenses for about a year after moving out without Rosalba's help, and that both parties would receive an equal lump sum from selling the marital home. The court concluded that Raul did not show a need for support that outweighed the burden such payments would place on Rosalba, and that Rosalba did not have the ability to pay alimony. The court denied alimony and indicated Rosalba would be awarded attorney fees and costs, with a separate order to follow on the amount. On appeal, Raul argued that the court should not have counted Rosalba's spending on their adult daughter, that Rosalba's expenses were inflated, and that some of her medical expenses were unnecessary. The Court of Appeals disagreed. It explained that the law requires the court to consider each spouse's financial condition, which includes their expenses. Raul did not point to any legal authority showing the court could not consider these particular expenses. The appellate court also explained that Raul was essentially asking it to re-weigh the evidence - to decide which testimony was believable and how much weight it deserved - which is the job of the trial court, not the appellate court. Because the trial court's findings were supported by the evidence and Raul identified no legal error, the Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion and affirmed the denial of alimony. The court also addressed a few side points. It noted that Raul's challenge to the attorney fees award was premature, because the decree contemplated further proceedings to set the fee amount and no final order on fees had been properly appealed. And it treated two mistakes in the decree - a reference to Rosalba obtaining a high school diploma when she did not finish high school, and a statement that the marriage occurred in 2015 instead of 2014 - as harmless clerical errors that did not change the analysis.