Nevada family-law case summaries

Sharon and Kenneth Wilson were married in 2004 and had five children together. Sharon filed for divorce and asked the court for various custody arrangements and for an order requiring Kenneth to pay her attorney fees and costs. Kenneth opposed her requests and asked for primary physical custody of the children. According to the financial disclosure forms, Kenneth's average gross monthly income was $7,810 and Sharon's was $1,560. At trial, Sharon testified her income was about $1,200 per month and Kenneth's about $8,100 per month. The couple settled most of their disputes, including how to divide their property, but they could not agree on child custody or on who should pay attorney fees. After a trial, the district court denied Sharon's request that Kenneth pay her attorney fees. When Sharon asked for fees, she specifically pointed to the large gap between the two spouses' incomes. But when the court denied her request, it did not mention that income gap. In its written divorce decree, the court explained that each party should pay their own attorney fees because neither side won (neither was a "prevailing party") and both acted in good faith. Sharon appealed, arguing that the court was required to consider the difference in the spouses' incomes before deciding the attorney-fee question, and that it failed to do so. The Court of Appeals agreed with Sharon. Under Nevada law, when a court decides whether to award attorney fees in a divorce case, it must consider the disparity (the difference) between the parties' incomes. The appellate court found that the district court did not do this - it did not make any findings about the income difference and appeared to rely only on the fact that neither party had "prevailed." The court also rejected Kenneth's argument that the income difference did not matter because the court gave fees to neither side; the appellate court explained that the income disparity must be considered even when a court declines to award fees. Because the district court did not apply the required legal standard, the Court of Appeals reversed the denial of attorney fees and sent the case back for further proceedings.