Skip to main content
Supreme Court of Nevada Fiat Justitia

Thursday, May 18, 2017 - Las Vegas - Silver/Tao/Gibbons

LOONEY VS. LOONEY
Docket Number: 64582 C/W 64985
Las Vegas - 10:30 A.M. - Court of Appeals

These are consolidated appeals from post-divorce decree district court orders regarding spousal support, child support, and the division of a retirement account. The parties entered into a stipulated divorce decree that required appellant to make child and spousal support payments to respondent. The decree also indicated that the parties would split the community-property portion of appellant’s retirement account and that appellant would be afforded 14 days to produce documentation establishing what portion of that account was separate property. After the decree was entered, appellant moved to modify his child and spousal support obligations based on the loss of his job. Appellant also contended that he had been unable to produce documentation regarding the separate-property portion of his retirement account and asked for more time to do so. The district court entered an order in August 2013 that deferred ruling on appellant’s request to modify the child and spousal support obligations and ruled that the entire retirement account was community property based on appellant's failure to provide evidence supporting his separate property. The district court entered another order in January 2014 that denied appellant’s request to modify the child and spousal support obligations. Appellant has challenged both orders on appeal.

ISSUES:

(1) Whether substantial evidence supported the district court’s determinations that appellant was willfully underemployed so as to justify the district court’s refusal to reduce appellant's child and spousal support obligations; (2) Whether the district court abused its discretion when it refused to afford appellant more time to produce evidence supporting appellant’s claim that portions of a community-property retirement account actually consisted of appellant’s separate property; (3) Whether the district court erred in refusing to hold respondent liable for her tax liability associated with the community-property retirement account.

Disclaimer:

This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Court of Appeals. It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties.