Devries v. Gallio, No. 57199.

Docket NºNo. 57199.
Citation128 Nev. Adv. Op. 63, 290 P.3d 260
Case DateDecember 13, 2012
CourtSupreme Court of Nevada

290 P.3d 260
128 Nev.
Adv. Op. 63

Gerald DEVRIES, Appellant,
v.
Mardell GALLIO, Respondent.

No. 57199.

Supreme Court of Nevada.

Dec. 13, 2012.


[290 P.3d 262]


Law Offices of Roderic A. Carucci and Roderic A. Carucci, Reno, for Appellant.

Bullock Law Offices, Ltd., and Jack T. Bullock II, Winnemucca, for Respondent.


Before SAITTA, PICKERING and HARDESTY, JJ.

OPINION

By the Court, HARDESTY, J.:

This appeal concerns the district court's resolution of property division and spousal support issues in a divorce decree. During the divorce proceedings between appellant Gerald Devries and respondent Mardell Gallio, Gerald sought an interest in Mardell's separate property and requested spousal support. After three evidentiary hearings, which focused on the property division issue, the district court entered a divorce decree in which it found that Gerald was not entitled to any interest in Mardell's separate property. Without conducting an evidentiary hearing on the spousal support request or expressly analyzing the factors for determining spousal support set forth in Sprenger v. Sprenger, 110 Nev. 855, 878 P.2d 284 (1994), and NRS 125.150(8), the court declined to award spousal support to either party. Gerald appealed. While we conclude that the district court's separate property decisions are supported by substantial evidence and thus affirm that portion of the decree, we reverse and remand as to the district court's rejection of the spousal support request, because it appears that the court failed to properly consider that issue.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The parties were married in 1997 and filed for divorce in 2009. The main issue in the divorce proceedings was the characterization of the couple's property. Both Gerald and Mardell were in the cattle business. After the marriage, Mardell formed two companies, Gallio Ranches, Inc., and Gallio Cattle, LLC, which held, respectively, her separately owned property, and a 1,500–acre cattle ranch in which she had a 30–percent interest. Gerald argued that he had an interest in Gallio Cattle because he had worked for the company from the time of its formation to the time of the divorce but had never received a wage. He claimed that, due to a premarital civil judgment against him, the parties had agreed that all of his income and earnings would be submitted to Gallio Ranches in order to prevent those assets from being subjected to the premarital judgment.

The district court held three evidentiary hearings focusing on the character of the couple's property. During the hearings, the parties generally discussed the various places that they had worked and their labor contributions to the marriage. They also provided an exhaustive tracing of property and cattle purchased and sold during the marriage. At the conclusion of these hearings, the district court characterized the property as community or separate, held that both Gallio Ranches and Gallio Cattle were Mardell's separate property, and declined to award Gerald an interest in either entity.

[290 P.3d 263]

Although Gerald sought spousal support from Mardell in his complaint for divorce, the district court did not hear evidence on the support issue. At the conclusion of the evidentiary hearings, Gerald noted that the issue of spousal support had not yet been addressed. Instead of scheduling a fourth evidentiary hearing, however, the district court asked both parties to submit a proposed final divorce decree addressing the spousal support issue. After receiving the proposed divorce decrees, the district court declined to award either party spousal support because it found that there were insufficient facts to support awarding either party spousal support under the “statutory factors.” However, the court did not discuss the factors or cite to the law it relied upon in making its finding.1 Gerald now appeals.

DISCUSSION
Separate property

This court reviews a district court's decisions made in a divorce decree for an abuse of discretion. Williams v. Williams, 120 Nev. 559, 566, 97 P.3d 1124, 1129 (2004). Those decisions supported by substantial evidence will be affirmed. Id. “Substantial evidence is that which a sensible person may accept as adequate to sustain a judgment.” Id.

On appeal, Gerald contends that the district court abused its discretion by failing to award him an interest in Gallio Cattle even though both parties contributed their labor and skill, without compensation, to increase the value of the business.2 In Nevada, “when a spouse devotes his time, labor, and skill to the production of income from separate property,” the court may apportion any increase in value of the separate property business between the separate property and community property estates. Cord v. Neuhoff, 94 Nev. 21, 26, 573 P.2d 1170, 1173 (1978). This court has approved the two main methods of apportionment expressed in the California cases of Pereira v. Pereira, 156 Cal. 1, 103 P. 488 (1909), and Van Camp v. Van Camp, 53...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 practice notes
  • Kogod v. Cioffi-Kogod, No. 71147
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court of Nevada
    • April 25, 2019
    ...a district court must consider 439 P.3d 401the eleven factors listed in NRS 125.150(9).1 See DeVries v. Gallio, 128 Nev. 706, 711-13, 290 P.3d 260, 264-65 (2012). The district court may also consider any other relevant factor, but it must not consider the marital fault or misconduct, or lac......
  • State v. Tricas, No. 59559.
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court of Nevada
    • December 13, 2012
    ...Similarly, in Steinberger v. District Court in & for Tenth Judicial District, the Colorado Supreme Court held that when a defendant [290 P.3d 260]was granted immunity for testimony after being found guilty, but before sentencing, the defendant was immunized from being sentenced. 596 P.2......
  • Kohli v. Kohli, No. 69650
    • United States
    • Nevada Court of Appeals of Nevada
    • October 13, 2017
    ...reviews a district court's decisions made in a divorce decree for an abuse of discretion." Devries v. Gallio, 128 Nev. 706, 708, 290 P.3d 260, 263 (2012). "Those decisions supported by substantial evidence will be affirmed." Id. Substantial evidence is evidence that "a s......
  • Doan v. Wilkerson, No. 56591.
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court of Nevada
    • June 26, 2014
    ...rulings supported by substantial evidence will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. Devries v. Gallio, 128 Nev. ––––, ––––, 290 P.3d 260, 263 (2012). “However, ... the district court must apply the correct legal standard.” Williams v. Waldman, 108 Nev. 466, 471, 836 P.2d 614, 617......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
19 cases
  • Kogod v. Cioffi-Kogod, No. 71147
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court of Nevada
    • April 25, 2019
    ...a district court must consider 439 P.3d 401the eleven factors listed in NRS 125.150(9).1 See DeVries v. Gallio, 128 Nev. 706, 711-13, 290 P.3d 260, 264-65 (2012). The district court may also consider any other relevant factor, but it must not consider the marital fault or misconduct, or lac......
  • State v. Tricas, No. 59559.
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court of Nevada
    • December 13, 2012
    ...Similarly, in Steinberger v. District Court in & for Tenth Judicial District, the Colorado Supreme Court held that when a defendant [290 P.3d 260]was granted immunity for testimony after being found guilty, but before sentencing, the defendant was immunized from being sentenced. 596 P.2d at......
  • Kohli v. Kohli, No. 69650
    • United States
    • Nevada Court of Appeals of Nevada
    • October 13, 2017
    ...court reviews a district court's decisions made in a divorce decree for an abuse of discretion." Devries v. Gallio, 128 Nev. 706, 708, 290 P.3d 260, 263 (2012). "Those decisions supported by substantial evidence will be affirmed." Id. Substantial evidence is evidence that "a sensible person......
  • Doan v. Wilkerson, No. 56591.
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court of Nevada
    • June 26, 2014
    ...rulings supported by substantial evidence will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. Devries v. Gallio, 128 Nev. ––––, ––––, 290 P.3d 260, 263 (2012). “However, ... the district court must apply the correct legal standard.” Williams v. Waldman, 108 Nev. 466, 471, 836 P.2d 614, 617......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT