Martin v. Martin

2022 NV 78 (Nev. 2022) · Supreme Court of Nevada · December 1, 2022 · No. Nos. 81810 and 82517

Summary

The Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed orders enforcing a divorce decree that required a military veteran to reimburse the former spouse for reductions in military retirement benefits resulting from an election to receive disability pay. The court held that federal law, including Howell v. Howell and Mansell v. Mansell, did not preempt enforcement of the parties' negotiated indemnification provision under contract principles and res judicata. The court also upheld a pendente lite attorney-fee award under NRS 125.040 without requiring analysis of the Brunzell factors because the award concerned prospective appellate work.

Holdings

  1. Federal law prohibits a state court from treating military disability pay as community property or directly dividing it to compensate a former spouse for reduced retirement pay, but it does not prevent a Nevada court from enforcing a negotiated property-settlement provision requiring the veteran to reimburse the former spouse.
  2. The district court properly enforced the divorce decree because the parties' signed settlement created a valid, unambiguous contract and the final decree satisfied Nevada's requirements for res judicata.
  3. A district court may award pendente lite attorney fees under NRS 125.040 based on the parties' financial circumstances without applying the Brunzell factors when the award concerns prospective legal work.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether federal law, including the Uniformed Services Former Spouses' Protection Act and Howell v. Howell, preempts enforcement of a negotiated divorce-decree provision requiring a veteran to reimburse a former spouse for reductions in military retirement benefits caused by an election to receive disability pay.
  2. Whether the negotiated divorce decree is enforceable under Nevada contract principles and res judicata or claim preclusion.
  3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by awarding pendente lite attorney fees under NRS 125.040 without applying the Brunzell factors.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (25)

  • Brunzell v. Golden Gate National Bank, 85 Nev. 345, 455 P.2d 31 (1969)(distinguished)
  • Howell v. Howell, 581 U.S. 214, 137 S. Ct. 1400 (2017)(distinguished)
  • Mansell v. Mansell, 490 U.S. 581 (1989)(distinguished)
  • Jones v. Jones, 505 P.3d 224 (Alaska 2022)(followed)
  • Shelton v. Shelton, 119 Nev. 492, 78 P.3d 507 (2003)(followed)
  • Nanopierce Technologies, Inc. v. Depository Trust & Clearing Corp., 123 Nev. 362, 168 P.3d 73 (2007)(followed)
  • Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, 439 U.S. 572 (1979)(followed)
  • May v. Anderson, 121 Nev. 668, 119 P.3d 1254 (2005)(followed)
  • Grisham v. Grisham, 128 Nev. 679, 289 P.3d 230 (2012)(followed)
  • Rivero v. Rivero, 125 Nev. 410, 216 P.3d 213 (2009)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 25.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…