IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
MELONY WILDE, No. 59211
Appellant,
vs. FILED
STEVE WILDE,
Respondent. APR 2 5 2013
AC1E K. LINDEMAN
SU"R
ORDER OF REVERSAL AND REMAND 1
CLER
BY
la ilk
EPUT" .;LEP.
Upon their divorce in 2010, Steve and Melony Wilde execUted
a marital settlement agreement, in which Steve agreed to pay Melony
$4,500 per month in alimony. In 2011, Steve moved to reduce his monthly
alimony obligation due to a purported decrease in his monthly income.
The district court granted Steve's motion to reduce his alimony payment—
considering several factors; but not Steve's 2010 federal tax return.
Melony maintained that NRS 125.150(7) required Steve to produce his
2010 tax return before the district court could modify the marital
settlement agreement. Yet, the district court determined Steve was not
required to submit his tax return; rather, the tax return was simply a
"good starting point for determining income[.]" The issue here is whether
the district court abused its discretion in declining to review Steve's 2010
federal tax return before granting Steve's motion to reduce his alimony
payments. We hold the district court abused its discretion because NRS
1 Thisis an appeal from a district court order modifying a marital
settlement agreement. Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Court
Division, Clark County; T. Arthur Ritchie, Jr., Judge.
SUPREME COURT
OF
VACMED PEA OR,DER FILED - 5 1a111b.
NEVADA
(0) 1947A 13 - s 2Z02_
125.150(7) instructs the courts to consider the income of the party ordered
to pay alimony, as indicated on the party's tax return from the preceding
calendar year.
Under NRS 125.150(7), when a district court is determining
whether to reduce an alimony award agreed upon in a marital settlement
agreement "the court shall consider whether the [payor spouse's income],
as indicated on the spouse's federal income tax return for the preceding
calendar year, has been reduced to such a level that the spouse is
financially unable to pay the amount of alimony the spouse has been
ordered to pay." Here, 2010 was the preceding year; thus, the district
court was required to consider Steve's 2010 federal income tax return to
determine his income. We note that Steve's tax return was not required to
be submitted into the record. An in camera review of Steve's tax return
would have satisfied NRS 125.150(7), if other consideration so warranted.
Accordingly we,
ORDER the judgment of the district court REVERSED AND
REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with
this order.
Gibbons
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
cc: Hon. T. Arthur Ritchie, Jr., District Judge, Family Court Division
Carolyn Worrell, Settlement Judge
Rocheleau Law Group, PC
Pecos Law Group
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A