response to evidence submitted by respondent that indicated that he had
been providing such support. In reviewing appellant's request, the district
court found, and the record demonstrates, that there was conflicting
evidence presented regarding how much support respondent provided
appellant during the separation period. After reviewing this evidence, the
district court ultimately concluded that it was unable to determine if any
child support or temporary spousal support was owed based on the
conflicting evidence, and therefore, the court denied appellant's request.
As this court will not reweigh the evidence or witness credibility when
conflicting evidence is presented, see Castle v. Simmons, 120 Nev. 98, 103,
86 P.3d 1042, 1046 (2004), we conclude that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in denying appellant's request for child support or
temporary spousal support for the period when the parties lived
separately. See Edgington v. Edgington, 119 Nev. 577, 588, 80 P.3d 1282,
1290 (2003) (providing that this court reviews a district court's award of
child support for an abuse of discretion); Wolff v. Wolff, 112 Nev. 1355,
1359, 929 P.2d 916, 919 (1996) (explaining that this court will not
overturn a district court's spousal support award absent an abuse of
discretion).
Appellant also argues that the district court abused its
discretion in awarding her spousal support for only 150 months, asserting
that it should have awarded her lifetime support because she is disabled
and unable to work. Appellant argues that she is unable to receive social
security disability benefits as she did not work for a long enough period to
receive such benefits. But appellant makes both the social-security-
benefits-based argument and the request for lifetime spousal support
payments for the first time on appeal, and thus, these arguments are not
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
! ±.; EWES
properly before us and we will not consider them in resolving this appeal.
See Old Aztec Mine, Inc. v. Brown, 97 Nev. 49, 52, 623 P.2d 981, 983 (1981)
(stating that this court will not consider an argument raised for the first
time on appeal). Further, it was within the district court's discretion to
award appellant spousal support for 150 months, and thus, no abuse of its
discretion occurred in making that award. See Wolff, 112 Nev. at 1359,
929 P.2d at 919 (explaining that this court will not overturn a district
court's spousal support award absent an abuse of discretion).
Lastly, appellant contends that the district court abused its
discretion in denying her request for attorney fees. The record shows that
in a pre-divorce decree order, the district court denied appellant's request
for attorney fees because she had used the parties' joint tax return to pay
her attorney. To the extent that appellant purports to challenge this
ruling, we find no abuse of discretion in the denial of appellant's request
for attorney fees on this basis. See Sprenger v. Sprenger, 110 Nev. 855,
861, 878 P.2d 284, 288 (1994) (noting that "Nile award of attorney's fees
in divorce proceedings lies within the sound discretion of the trial judge").
While the divorce decree itself also states that appellant is denied attorney
fees, it is unclear whether this ruling merely reiterates the earlier, pre-
divorce decree denial of attorney fees, or rejects a subsequent request for
attorney fees made by appellant. Appellant's arguments on appeal do not
clarify this point and there is nothing in the record indicating that
appellant made any additional request for attorney fees. Under these
circumstances, we will not disturb the district court's ruling regarding
appellant's attorney fees request. See id.; see also Cuzze v. Univ. & Cmty.
Coll. Sys. of Nev., 123 Nev. 598, 603, 172 P.3d 131, 135 (2007) (providing
that appellant has the duty to present a complete record on appeal and
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) I947A
- ",:a15v=3.sANAM";.`2X,Y71..7c,M71 I
- -
that this court will presume that matters not in the record support the
district court's decision).
For the reasons set forth above, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.'
J.
Hardesty
p T-664.‘
o..dot
Parraguirre
Ckit J.
Cherry
cc: Hon. William S. Potter, District Judge, Family Court Division
Angela J. Nunley
James E. Smith
Eighth District Court Clerk
'Having considered appellant's remaining arguments, we conclude
that they lack merit.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A