l
114 Nev. 416, 422, 956 P.2d 761, 764 (1998). The district court's factua
er v.
findings must be supported by substantial evidence, see Shydl
that
Shydler, 114 Nev. 192, 196, 954 P.2d 37, 39 (1998), which is evidence
Ellis
a reasonable person may accept as adequate to sustain a judgment.
ially
v. Carucci, 123 Nev. 145, 149, 161 P.3d 239, 242 (2007). Judic
sanctioned spousal support may be modified upon a showing of changed
is
circumstances. NRS 125.150(7). Here, the record reveals that there
substantial evidence supporting the district court's findings that
appellant's health conditions and her income-earning prospects had not
changed from the time that the support award was made and that
appellant failed to establish changed circumstances. Additionally,
appellant has not demonstrated that the district court should have held an
evidentiary hearing on the matter. Cf. Rooney v. Rooney, 109 Nev. 540,
is
542-43, 853 P.2d 123, 124-25 (1993) (providing that if a moving party
y
unable to make out a prima facie case for modification of a child custod
award, the court may resolve a motion without holding an evidentiary
hearing). Thus, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its
See
discretion in denying appellant's request to modify spousal support.
Gilman, 114 Nev. at 422, 956 P.2d at 764.
Appellant also argues that the district court improperly denied
her request for tort and contract civil remedies for respondent's violation
of
of the terms of the marital settlement agreement and memorandum
agreement incorporated into the divorce decree. By the terms of the
to
divorce decree, respondent took the marital home and was required
refinance the mortgage in order to remove appellant as an obligor. At the
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
time appellant filed her motion for tort and contract remedies, respondent
had not succeeded in removing appellant from the mortgage.
While the family court division of the district court has
see
jurisdiction to adjudicate claims outside the scope of NRS 3.223,
lant's
Landreth v. Malik, 127 Nev. , 251 P.3d 163, 164 (2011), appel
tort and contract claims were improperly raised in a post-judgment
should be
motion. See generally NRCP 8 (explaining that claims for relief
set forward in a pleading); NRCP 15 (providing when a pleading may be
al
amended and supplemented). Additionally, because the marit
settlement agreement and memorandum of agreement were incorporated
and merged into the divorce decree, any attempt to enforce these
80
agreements under contract principles is improper. See Day v. Day,
r
Nev. 386, 389-90, 395 P.2d 321, 322-23 (1964) (explaining that the merge
of an agreement into a divorce decree destroys the independent existence
d
of the agreement). Accordingly, the district court properly denie
appellant's tort and contract claims.
Finally, appellant argues that the district court abused its
's
discretion by not reducing her obligation to pay the parties' child
unreimbursed medical expenses to only five percent of the cost incurred.
t
Because there is substantial evidence in the record supporting the distric
court's findings that there was no change in circumstances warranting the
modification and that appellant was able to pay the amount ordered in the
divorce decree, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying the request to reduce appellant's support obligation
1015,
for the child's medical expenses. See Wallace v. Wallace, 112 Nev.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A air>
minor
1019, 922 P.2d 541, 543 (1996) ("Matters of custody and support of
children rest in the sound discretion of the trial court.").
For the reasons discussed above, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.'
J.
Pickering
1:24)1 , J.
Parra:2r
J.
Saitta
ion
cc: Hon. William B. Gonzalez, District Judge, Family Court Divis
Carolyn Worrell, Settlement Judge
Roberts Stoffel Family Law Group
Sklar Williams LLP
Eighth District Court Clerk
'To the extent that appellant's arguments are not addressed by this
order, we conclude that they lack merit.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1 94Th elpoo
Viallet-Volk v. Volk
Combined Opinion