is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation" (internal
quotations omitted)). Further, to the extent that the transcript attached
to the divorce decree was inconsistent with the unambiguous terms of the
decree, the district court properly declined to consider the transcript to
interpret the provision. 1 See Kishner v. Kishner, 93 Nev. 220, 225, 562
P.2d 493, 496 (1977) (noting that the district court may not construe a
decree that is not ambiguous). Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
J.
ett.AA.
Parraguirre
C641. J.
Cherry
cc: Hon. Charles J. Hoskin, District Judge, Family Court Division
Lansford W. Levitt, Settlement Judge
Mills & Mills
Renee Schmidt
Eighth District Court Clerk
'We decline to consider appellant's argument that the transcript was
incorporated into the divorce decree pursuant to NRS 123.080, as
appellant failed to raise that argument before the district court. See State
Bd. of Equalization v. Barta, 124 Nev. 612, 621, 188 P.3d 1092, 1098
(2008) (providing that "this court generally will not consider arguments
that a party raises for the first time on appeal").
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
:WitZMICIENASS MIMMIRM