Nevada family-law case summaries

Samuel and Jeannette Vasquez were married in October 1996. In August 2022, Jeannette filed for divorce. Because their children were already adults and there was no custody dispute, the court's job was to divide the couple's property and debts and decide whether Jeannette should receive alimony (regular financial support paid by one former spouse to the other). At an evidentiary hearing (a court session where both sides present testimony and evidence), Jeannette testified that she had mostly been a homemaker raising the children during their nearly 28-year marriage and had worked as a teacher for the last ten years. She earned about $4,333.33 per month as a teacher and received $524.31 per month in disability income from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for chronic heart disease. She asked for $2,000 a month in alimony for fifteen years. A central dispute was about money in Samuel's Chase savings account. According to the records, Samuel had disclosed $230,000 in that account, but a later disclosure showed the balance had dropped to $20,000 over about seven months - a reduction of roughly $210,000. Jeannette argued Samuel had spent this money deliberately so she would not get her share of it. Samuel said he worked as a director at a healthcare company earning $8,333.33 per month and also received $4,250 per month in rental income from a California property that he had not listed on his financial disclosure forms. He testified that the money in the Chase account came from a gift or inheritance from his mother. When asked how he spent $210,000 in seven months, he said he did remodeling projects and paid bills, but he also acknowledged credit card and bank charges for international travel with his girlfriend. The district court did not find Samuel's explanation credible. Because the money had been deposited during the marriage, the court treated it as community property (property belonging to both spouses). The court found Samuel failed to show the money was a gift and failed to credibly explain where the $210,000 went. The court concluded the spending was "marital waste" - using shared property for selfish purposes unrelated to the marriage at a time the marriage was breaking down. To make up for half of the wasted money, the court awarded Jeannette $105,000. The court also awarded Jeannette $2,000 per month in alimony for ten years, after weighing factors such as the length of the marriage, the difference in the spouses' incomes, Jeannette's role as a homemaker and teacher, and Samuel's higher income and income-producing property. On appeal, Samuel argued the waste finding was not supported by the record, that Jeannette suffered no economic harm, that he had no intent to deprive her of her share, and that she did not need alimony. The Court of Appeals rejected these arguments. It explained that appellate courts do not re-weigh witness credibility, that substantial evidence supported the district court's findings, and that Samuel had not even provided the appellate court with the bank and credit card records from the hearing - so the court presumed those records supported the lower court's findings. The Court of Appeals affirmed the divorce decree in full.