Nevada family-law case summaries

Donte and Carmen Lofton married in 2012. In 2020, Carmen filed for divorce and asked the court to divide their shared property and award her alimony (spousal support - money one spouse pays the other after divorce). After a trial, the district court entered a divorce decree that divided the property and ordered Donte to pay Carmen $750 per month in alimony for 36 months. A separate order entered on August 11, 2022, resolving a dispute over insurance policies, was the final order in the divorce. In 2022, Donte asked the court to lower his alimony, saying his financial situation had changed. He pointed to periods of unemployment, higher mortgage payments, new financial responsibility for his grandchild and disabled adult son, and large expenses from unrelated criminal court matters, including attorney bills for a charge that could carry a life sentence. He submitted tax returns and financial disclosure forms. His 2021 return showed annual income of $27,405, but his updated disclosures showed rising income - one amended form stated he could earn $142,318.20 if he worked a full year. Carmen opposed the change, arguing that Donte's line of work normally involves brief gaps between projects, that he would likely be rehired soon, and that he actually earned more in 2022 than in 2021. She also asked the court to order Donte to explain why he should not be held in contempt for not paying the required alimony. After a hearing, the district court found that Donte's income had increased substantially - from about $27,000 in 2021 to an annual income of about $142,000 - and concluded he had not shown that lowering his alimony was warranted. The court later entered an order awarding Carmen $6,550 in alimony arrears plus $413.95 in interest, and turned that into a judgment. On appeal, Donte first tried to overturn the original divorce decree's alimony and attorney-fee award. The appeals court said it could not consider that challenge because Donte did not file his appeal within the deadline after the final order in the divorce. When an appeal is filed too late, the court has no power (jurisdiction) to hear it, so that portion of the appeal was dismissed. Donte next argued the court was wrong to deny his request to lower the alimony, saying it misjudged his income and did not properly weigh his other obligations. The appeals court explained that it does not re-decide factual questions when the lower court's decision is supported by adequate evidence. A key problem for Donte was that, although he requested a hearing transcript, he never provided the appeals court with a copy of it. Because the court had no transcript of the hearing where the income evidence and arguments were presented, it presumed the missing transcript supported the district court's findings and could not meaningfully review his challenge. On that basis, the court concluded Donte had not shown the district court abused its discretion. Finally, to the extent Donte tried to challenge the order turning the arrears into a judgment, the court held he made no actual argument about that decision, so he waived (gave up) any challenge to it. The court affirmed the denial of the modification motion and the arrears judgment.