Opinion
No. 60481
07-24-2013
MICHAEL A. CARVATTA, Appellant, v. VENESA MASCOLINO, Respondent.
An unpublished order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority. SCR 123.
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
This is a proper person appeal from a district court post-divorce decree order concerning alimony. Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Court Division, Clark County; Bill Henderson, Judge.
Having considered appellant's arguments and the record on appeal, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's request to modify his alimony obligation. See Gilman v. Gilman, 114 Nev. 416, 422, 956 P.2d 761, 764 (1998) (explaining that this court reviews a district court's ruling on a motion to modify an alimony obligation for an abuse of discretion). Regardless of whether respondent filed an updated financial disclosure form, the record demonstrates that appellant failed to comply with the district court's order to provide it with an updated financial disclosure form. Without that form, the district court could not determine whether appellant's circumstances had changed to the extent that a reduction in his alimony obligation was warranted. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
To the extent that appellant sought to challenge the district court's May 5, 2010, order under NRCP 60(b) based on inadvertence, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion, as it was untimely. See NRCP 60(b) (providing that motions for relief from judgment based on inadvertence must be filed within six months after service of the notice of entry of the order). Additionally, we have considered appellant's remaining arguments and conclude that they lack merit.
______, J.
Hardesty
______, J.
Parraguirre
______, J.
Cherry
cc: Hon. Bill Henderson, District Judge, Family Court Division
Michael A. Carvatta
Venesa Mascolino
Eighth District Court Clerk