Stojanovich v. Stojanovich, 6141
| Decision Date | 25 November 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 6141,6141 |
| Citation | 476 P.2d 950,86 Nev. 789 |
| Parties | Petor STOJANOVICH, Appellant, v. Barbara A. STOJANOVICH, Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of divorce by appellant husband (defendant and counterclaimant below) in favor of respondent wife (plaintiff and counterdefendant below). The lower court awarded the wife a decree of divorce, custody of two children, ordered the husband to pay child support (but not alimony) and adjudicated the property rights and interests of the parties. The only issue before us has to do with the judgment of the lower court adjudicating those property rights and whether that court abused its discretion. We feel that it did, and therefore reverse the decision and remand for a limited new trial on that narrow question.
Petor and Barbara were married in Reno in October, 1960. Prior to their marriage, Petor lived in Las Vegas where he worked in the gaming industry. Slightly over four years before the marriage, Petor purchased a home for $15,800 on a long-term contract. The home was furnished when Petor and Barbara took up residence there, but new and additional items of furniture were acquired following their marriage. Prior to the marriage, Petor added improvements to the house valued at approximately $6,500. The home was further improved after the marriage in the approximate value of $10,000. At the time of the trial, the estimated market value of the house was $28,000, but there was still outstanding a first deed of trust of approximately $10,800, leaving an equity of approximately $18,000 to be dealt with. It is that equity and the lower court's ruling thereon which creates the principal issue on appeal.
Other evidence shows that two children, a boy and a girl, were born of the marriage, whose ages at the time of the divorce were 6 and 5, respectively. Barbara was given their custody, with reasonable visitation rights and temporary periods of custody reserved to Petor. Petor was ordered to pay $150 per month for the support and maintenance of each child except when in his temporary custody. No issue arises from that part of the decree.
The evidence further shows that Petor is employed as a pit boss at a gambling casino and was earning at the time of the divorce approximately $21,000 per year. Barbara is employed as a cocktail waitress at a strip hotel, earning wages of approximately $130 per month but receiving considerable 'tokes' which make her gross earnings somewhere between $550 per month, as she contended, or $50 to $75 per day as Petor contended. In any event, the court did not grant Barbara alimony.
The court found Petor had treated Barbara with extreme cruelty, both mental and physical, and granted Barbara the divorce and her costs of suit.
The court found the community property of the parties to consist of the following:
(a) Equity in dwelling house located at 1509 East Bonanza, Las Vegas, Nevada.
(b) Furniture, furnishings, appliances, fixtures and household items situated in said dwelling house, except the furniture in Bedroom No. 2.
(c) 1967 Ford automobile.
(d) 1962 Chevrolet Corvair automobile.
(e) 400 shares of the common capital stock of Mmerican Silver Company.
(f) 218 shares of Enterprise Fund.
(g) 54 shares of Value Lines.
(h) One declining term policy of life insurance on the life of the Defendant, written with Founders Insurance Company.
(i) One $10,000.00 accidental death policy on the life of the Defendant, written with Combine Insurance Company.
(j) One $10,000.00 life insurance policy on the life of Plaintiff, written with Continental Life Insurance Company.
(k) Joint banking account in the First National Bank of Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada.
The court also found that stock in the Nancy Lee Mining Co. and the furniture in Bedroom No. 2 were the separate property of Petor.
In dividing the community property of the parties, the court awarded to Barbara the following:
(a) Equity in dwelling house located at 1509 East Bonanza, Las Vegas, Nevada.
(b) Furniture, furnishings, appliances, fixtures and household items situated in said dwelling house, except the furniture in Bedroom No. 2.
(c) 1962 Chevrolet Corvair automobile.
(d) One $10,000.00 life insurance policy on the life of Plaintiff (Barbara), written with Continental Life Insurance Company.
The court awarded Petor, as his share of the community property, the following:
(a) 1967 Ford automobile.
(b) One declining term policy of life insurance on the life of the Defendant (Petor), written with Founders Insurance Company.
(c) One $10,000.00 accidental death policy on the life of the Defendant (Petor), written with Combine Insurance Company.
(d) Joint banking account in the First National Bank of Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada.
The following items of community property were divided equally between Barbara and Petor:
(a) 400 shares of the common capital stock of American Silver Company.
(b) 218 shares of Enterprise Fund.
(c) 54 shares of Value Lines.
Appellant contends the lower court abused its discretion in its determination the home was community property and in awarding it to Respondent. Appellant also urges the court erred in ruling all the furniture was the community property of the parties and granting it to Respondent.
Respondent, on the other hand, contends that, 'The trial court is directed, under the(se) provisions of N.R.S. 125.150(1), in a divorce, to make 'such disposition of the community property as shall appear just and equitable.' In making such disposition the court is directed to consider the 'respective merits of the parties;' 'the condition in which they will be left by such divorce;' and 'through whom the property was acquired;' 'and the burdens * * * imposed upon it, for the benefit of the children.'
'There was substantial evidence before the court on each of the aforementioned factors, justifying the court's manner of disposition of the community property.'
In its preliminary decision from the bench, the trial judge explained his reasons for awarding the home to Barbara as community property in the following way:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cameron v. Cameron
...it to a spouse in fulfillment of the statutory power to make an equitable disposition of the marital property. Stojanovich v. Stojanovich, 86 Nev. 789, 476 P.2d 950 (1970); Jacobs v. Jacobs, 83 Nev. 73, 422 P.2d 1005 (1967); Thorne v. Thorne, 74 Nev. 211, 326 P.2d 729 (1958). The New Mexico......
-
Sargeant v. Sargeant
...Zahringer v. Zahringer, 76 Nev. 21, 348 P.2d 161 (1960); Thorne v. Thorne, 74 Nev. 211, 326 P.2d 729 (1958); Stojanovich v. Stojanovich, 86 Nev. 789, 476 P.2d 950 (1950). It is apparent to this court that the lump sum alimony award was the setting apart of the husband's separate property fo......
-
McNabney v. McNabney
...and did not effectuate. The "appears-to-be-the-rule-in-most-cases" language of Weeks was quoted with approval in Stojanovich v. Stojanovich, 86 Nev. 789, 476 P.2d 950 (1970). The Stojanovich court went on to create a judicial addendum to the statute by requiring that when the trial court ma......
-
Sly v. Sly
...business had been transmuted into respondent's separate property, that issue is not properly before us. See Stojanovich v. Stojanovich, 86 Nev. 789, 792, 476 P.2d 950, 952 (1970). Appellant first contends that the court below erred in not specifying the community property interest in respon......