Nevada family-law case summaries

Albert and April Kagan divorced by a stipulated (agreed-upon) decree. They shared joint physical custody of their two children, and Albert was ordered to pay April $906 per month in child support. Later, Albert asked the court to lower his payments, saying more than three years had passed since support was last set and that his income had dropped by more than 20 percent. April did not argue against changing the amount in principle; instead, she disputed what the new figure should be and claimed Albert owed her back-owed support (called "arrears"). After a hearing, the district court lowered Albert's monthly support to $644.16. It also found that Albert owed $6,663.02 in arrears. Because Albert had been paying at the old, higher rate while his motion was pending, the court found he had overpaid by $1,407.36 and credited that against the arrears. That left $5,255.66 in arrears, which the court turned into a formal money judgment, ordering Albert to pay it off at $90 per month. The Court of Appeals reversed and sent the case back for two main reasons. First, on the amount of support, the court could not tell how the district court arrived at April's monthly income. Working backward from the figures used, the appeals court could see the district court had treated April's monthly gross income as $2,322 - but no matter which source of income information it looked at (April's paycheck stubs or statements her lawyer made at the hearing), the appeals court could find no formula that produced $2,322. Because the district court did not explain its math or state any reason for departing from the child support guidelines, the appeals court said it could not confirm the modified amount was supported by adequate evidence. Second, on the arrears, the appeals court found a due process problem. Albert had tried to argue that he had actually satisfied his support obligations, pointing in part to filings April made in a separate bankruptcy case that seemed to contradict her arrears claim. But at the hearing, the district court declined to consider Albert's arguments, simply adopted the $6,663.02 figure from an audit prepared by the Clark County District Attorney Family Support Division, and told Albert to raise any concerns with that agency directly. The appeals court held this denied Albert a meaningful chance to be heard before the court turned the arrears into a judgment - a deprivation of his property. The court sent both issues back to the district court for further findings and further proceedings. It also noted that because the overpayment credit depended on the modified support amount, the district court may need to recalculate the overpayment on remand.