ORDER AFFIRMING IN PART, REVERSING IN PART AND
REMANDING
David Morris appeals from a district court final order in a family law matter. Fifth Judicial District Court, Nye County; Robert W. Lane, Judge.
David and respondent Ashley Morris were married in March 2018, and have one minor child. David filed a complaint for divorce in October 2023. He sought joint legal and primary physical custody of their child. David alleged that the parties' separate and comrnunity property and debt should be divided according to Nevada law. He further alleged that neither party should pay spousal support or alimony to each other. Ashley filed an answer and counterclaim. She agreed to joint legal custody and that David should have primary physical custody of their child. Despite her agreement for David to have primary physical custody. she also sought the ability to relocate to Florida with their child. She agreed to the equitable division of community property and debt, as well as confirmation of separate property by the court. Ashley also sought alimony. In his answer to the counterclaim, David objected to Ashley relocating with their child and her request for alimony.
COURT OF APPEALS
OF
NEVADA
(01 194714 0(f - b5Ss-
1
The district court conducted an evidentiary hearing during which both David and Ashley testified. Of note for this matter, David testified that for the 18 months before the evidentiary hearing, he had been entering a sweepstakes drawing from a company that customizes Jeeps. In February 2024, David paid $70 to enter the contest and, in the week before the evidentiary hearing, David won a 2024 Jeep and $50,000 cash prize. He stated that the Jeep was valued at $60,000 and the additional $50,000 cash prize was to cover taxes on the Jeep. David traveled to Florida to accept the Jeep and sign the title and he anticipated the cash payment would arrive the week after the evidentiary hearing. He planned on selling the Jeep to cover debts.
At the close of the evidentiary hearing, the district court asked the parties to submit supplemental briefing on the budget and disposition of the windfall from the Jeep contest. Ashley filed a post-evidentiary hearing brief insisting that the Jeep, which she valued at $31,000, and the $50,000 cash from a contest should be split evenly as community property. She also sought alimony for three years. The appendix submitted on appeal does not contain a post-evidentiary hearing brief from David. The district court entered the divorce decree in June 2024. The district court awarded both parents joint legal and physical custody of their child; with David receiving primary physical custody if Ashley later relocated out of state. The decree ordered the attorneys for both parties to prepare a brief in support of the property distribution. In its October 2024 order regarding alimony and community property, the district court provided that the Jeep and the $50,000 dollars in contest winnings would be split evenly between the parties as it determined those assets were
COURT OF APPEALS
OF
NEVADA
2
community property. The district court also provided that David should pay Ashley $1,500 a month for three years in alimony. This appeal followed. First, David contends that the district court erred in dividing the sweepstakes winnings—the value of the Jeep and the additional $50,000—as community property.' David asserts he entered the sweepstakes after filing for divorce and while he and Ashley were separated and paid the entry fee from his post-separation earnings; thus, the winnings should have been considered separate property. He asserts that the district court implicitly found that he did not overcome the presumption that the funds were community property and that the record does not contain sufficient factual findings to permit appellate review. We review a district court's distribution of property in a divorce proceeding for an abuse of discretion. Schwartz v. Schwartz, 126 Nev. 87, 90 225 P.3d 1273, 1275 (2010). We will not disturb a district court's decision that is supported by substantial evidence. Williams v. Williams,
120 Nev. 559, 566, 97 P.3d 1124, 1129 (2004). Substantial evidence is that which a reasonable person may accept as adequate to sustain a judgment. Id. "However, in reaching a determination, the district court must apply the correct legal standard." Kerley v. Kerley, 111 Nev. 462, 465, 893 P.2d
358, 360 (1995).
This court will affirm the district court's property characterizations, so long as those characterizations are supported by substantial evidence. Lopez v. Lopez, 139 Nev. 533, 541, 541 P.3d 117, 125 (Ct. App. 2023). Assets a couple acquires "during marriage are presumed 'Ashley did not file an answering brief, and the supreme court previously ordered this matter to be decided without an answering brief from her.
COURT OF APPEALS
OF
NEVADA
3
i(), 1947It
3
to be community property, and this presumption can be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence." Id.; see also NRS 123.220 (providing that generally, all property acquired after the marriage is community property); Robison v. Robison, 100 Nev. 668, 670, 691 P.2d 451, 453 (1984) ("The earnings of either spouse during the marriage are considered to be comrnunity funds.").
David acknowledged that he entered the sweepstakes, paid the entry fee, won the sweepstakes, and took possession of the Jeep and expected the cash prize before the divorce decree was filed. See Kogod v. Cioffi-Kogod, 1.35 Nev. 64, 79, 439 P.3d 397, 409 (2019) (recognizing that the entry of the written divorce decree dissolves the marriage and terminates the community). David did not attempt to demonstrate that the winnings constituted separate property at the evidentiary hearing, nor do the appendices filed on appeal suggest he did so in a supplemental briefing. And, to the extent David argues that the district court did not properly evaluate the facts in reaching its determination that the sweepstakes winnings were community property, this court is not at liberty to reweigh the evidence. See Grosjean v. Imperial Palace, Inc., 125 Nev. 349, 366, 212 P.3d 1068, 1080 (2009). Therefore, we conclude David failed to demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion by finding the sweepstakes winnings constituted community property.
Second, David argues that the district court failed to make the necessary findings under NRS 125.150(9) to support the alimony award. Further, he contends that the record does not indicate a sufficient basis for the award and, if the court had reviewed the appropriate factors, it would have found those factors disfavored an alimony award. David asserts that this court should either vacate the alimony award as it is not supported by
COURT OF APPEALS
OF
NEVADA
(01 19171i cr,:gAtc.
4
the evidence submitted to the district court or remand for the district court to consider the appropriate statutory factors.
This court reviews a district court's decision to award alimony for an abuse of discretion. Kogod, 135 Nev. at 66, 439 P.3d at 400. When determining if alimony is just and equitable, a district court must consider the eleven factors listed in NRS 125.150(9). See Deuries v. Gallia, 128 Nev. 706, 711-13, 290 P.3d 260, 264-65 (2012); see also NRS 125.150(1)(a) (providing that the alimony award must be "just and equitable"). "Where the trial court does not indicate in its judgment or decree that it gave adequate consideration to the [appropriate] factors in failing to award any alimony .. ., this [c]ourt shall remand for reconsideration of the issue."
Forrest v. Forrest, 99 Nev. 602, 606, 668 P.2d 275, 278 (1983). The district court awarded Ashley $1,500 per month in alimony for three years but failed to include any analysis of the relevant factors during the evidentiary hearing or in its written orders such that this court is unable to properly review the alimony award. See Davis v. Ewalefo, 131 Nev. 445, 450, 352 P.3d 1139, 1142 (2015) ("Although this court reviews a district court's discretionary determinations deferentially, deference is not owed to legal error, or to findings so conclusory they may mask legal error."
(internal citations omitted)); see, e.g., In re Parental Rights as to C.C.A., 128 Nev. 166, 169, 273 P.3d 852, 854 (2012) (noting whether in writing or orally on the record, all the necessary factual findings should be on the record for proper appellate review because without specific findings, this court cannot determine whether the district court's conclusions are supported by substantial evidence). There is nothing in the record to suggest that the district court performed an analysis of the necessary factors set forth in NRS 125.150(9). Therefore, we reverse the district court's award of alimony
COURT OF APPEALS
OF
NEVADA
{Di 194711. • <7_,
5
and remand for the court to perform the required statutory analysis, including making findings in accordance with NRS 125.150(9) to support any award of alimony. See Forrest, 99 Nev. at 606, 668 P.2d at 278. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART AND REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with this order.
C.J.
Bulla
J.
Gibbons Westbrook cc: Hon. Robert W. Lane, District Judge Justice Law Center
Ashley Morris
Nye County Clerk
COURT OF APPEALS
OF
NEVADA
6
B1.11 1947B ‹1
6