an appropriate alimony award); NRS 125B.020(1) (imposing a duty on all
parents to provide their children with necessary maintenance and
support); BMW v. Roth, 127 Nev. , 252 P.3d 649, 657 (2011) ("A
district court would necessarily abuse its discretion if it based its ruling on
an erroneous view of the law . . . ." (quotation omitted)).
Second, while the district court appears to have been
attempting to afford respondent a lifestyle similar to that which he
enjoyed during the marriage, this cannot be accomplished solely at the
expense of the paying spouse. NRS 125.150(1)(a) (indicating that alimony
must be awarded under terms that are "just and equitable"). Here,
despite finding that "there are no issues as to the physical and mental
condition of [respondent] as it related to the financial condition, health
and ability to work," the district court awarded substantial alimony for a
period of ten years. This award was made in spite of the fact that the
district court "ha[d] concerns about the ability of [respondent] to manage
his money." Thus, while it is not necessarily an abuse of discretion to
award ten years of alimony to a spouse who has money-management
problems and who is wholly capable of working, the district court's factual
findings in this case simply do not support such an award.
Accordingly, we reverse the district court's alimony award,
and remand this matter to the district court for further proceedings. On
remand, the district court is instructed to exclude child support in
determining any alimony award, and it is further instructed to ensure that
there is a basis for the duration of any such award. NRS 125.150(8).
Appellant also seeks reversal of the district court's child
support award. Because a child support award is dictated by a statutory
formula driven by the paying parent's gross monthly income, see NRS
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
125B.070; NRS 125B.080(1), and because we perceive no abuse of
discretion in the district court's finding that respondent's salary was
$96,000 per year, we affirm the district court's child support award.
Wallace v. Wallace, 112 Nev. 1015, 1019, 922 P.2d 541, 543 (1996)
(indicating that child support matters are reviewed for an abuse of
discretion).
It is so ORDERED.
Hardesty
SOc--4001talcosiabareamin , J.
tec-j444.,
.
Parraguirre
46 . hut
akitrz
Cherry 7 ir , J.
cc: Hon. Gayle Nathan, District Judge
Carolyn Worrell, Settlement Judge
Mary F. Granger
Lance J. Hendron
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A a.
MINUMENNE