district court ordered that the difference between appellant's reduced
monthly spousal support obligation, and his monthly spousal support
obligation as provided for in the divorce decree, would accrue without
interest, to be paid after the original spousal support term expires.' In a
subsequent order entered in April 2011, the district court again set forth
appellant's monthly spousal support obligation of $750, and added $550
per month to the end of the spousal support term. The district court also
reduced to judgment $18,000, which represented the amount the district
court had added to the end of the spousal support term since the last
hearing. Lastly, the district court provided that respondent receive her
interest in the profit sharing plan's value as of February 22, 2008. This
appeal followed.
Because the district court considered appellant's change in
circumstances in its November 2009 order, we conclude the district court
did not abuse its discretion when it temporarily modified appellant's
spousal support obligation in that order. See Wolff v. Wolff, 112 Nev.
1355, 1359, 929 P.2d 916, 918-19 (1996) (providing that this court reviews
a spousal support award for an abuse of discretion). Further, because the
divorce decree provided that respondent was to receive her one-half
interest in the profit sharing plan's value as of February 22, 2008, we
conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in resolving the
'We conclude that because both the November 2009 order and the
April 2010 order were temporary orders, we have jurisdiction to consider
appellant's challenges to those orders in his appeal from the April 2011
order permanently modifying his spousal support obligation. See Consol.
Generator-Neu., Inc. v. Cummins Engine Co., Inc., 114 Nev. 1304, 1312,
971 P.2d 1251, 1256 (1998) (explaining that this court may review
interlocutory orders in an appeal from a final judgment).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1 947A et'
parties' dispute over the issue and directing that respondent's share of the
profit sharing plan would be valued as of February 22, 2008. See id.
(explaining that this court reviews a division of community property for an
abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we affirm these portions of the district
court's November 2009 and April 2011 orders.
We conclude, however, that the district court abused its
discretion in modifying appellant's spousal support obligation in the April
2010 and April 2011 orders. Even though the district court concluded that
a change in circumstances warranted a reduction in appellant's spousal
support obligation, instead of simply reducing the amount of monthly
spousal support to reflect the change in circumstances, the district court
increased the spousal support term to account for the difference, thereby
retaining the total amount of spousal support owed. See NRS 125.150(7)
(allowing a court to modify unaccrued spousal support when a change in
circumstances warrants the modification). The difference between the
original and the reduced monthly spousal support amounts had yet to
accrue, and nothing in the record on appeal demonstrates that the district
court found that appellant's income would return to its pre-divorce amount
by the time the original spousal support term ended. Thus, we conclude
the district court abused its discretion by adding these amounts to the end
of the spousal support term in both the April 2010 and April 2011 orders. 2
See Wolff, 112 Nev. at 1359, 929 P.2d at 918-19. For the same reason, it
2Because it is unclear whether the district court would have reduced
appellant's spousal support amount in its April 2011 order to $750 per
month if it was not adding $550 per month to the end of the spousal
support term, we are unable to determine if such a reduction was an abuse
of discretion, and thus, we reverse this spousal support reduction and
remand for further consideration.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A ea
was improper to reduce these amounts to judgment in the April 2011
order. Id. Accordingly, we reverse the district court's April 2010 order
and the portions of the April 2011 order modifying appellant's spousal
support obligation and reducing $18,000 in spousal support arrears to
judgment, and we remand this matter to the district court for proceedings
consistent with this order.
It is so ORDERED.
, J .
Hardesty
J.
J.
cc: Hon. Vincent Ochoa, District Judge
Steinberg Law Group
Sterling Law, LLC
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A ea