Opinion
No. 74873-COA
08-14-2019
WILLIAM CHRISTOPHER LACOST, Appellant, v. CHANDRA LYNN LACOST, Respondent.
ORDER OF REVERSAL AND REMAND
William Christopher LaCost appeals from a decree of divorce. Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Court Division, Clark County; Rebecca Burton, Judge.
In the proceedings below, the parties were divorced by way of a decree of divorce entered after trial. As relevant here, the decree awards respondent Chandra LaCost $4,750.00 as an equalization payment based on William receiving approximately $19,000.00 from his employer. The district court found that William spent $10,000.00 of the $19,000.00 on community debt and that $9,000.00 remained. However, the district court also found that the $19,000.00 payment from William's employer was paid to William in error and William was required to repay the money. Despite finding that the $19,000.00 was a community debt, the decree of divorce orders William to pay Chandra $4,750 as her one-half interest in the remaining $9,000.00. This appeal followed.
On appeal, William asserts that this award was an abuse of discretion because the money received from his employer is a debt that must be repaid, rather than an asset, such that Chandra should not have been awarded any portion. In her response, Chandra agrees that the $4,750.00 was awarded in error and should be stricken from the decree.
This court reviews the district court's decisions in divorce proceedings for an abuse of discretion. Williams v. Williams, 120 Nev. 559, 566, 97 P.3d 1124, 1129 (2004). This court will not disturb a district court's decision that is supported by substantial evidence. Id. Substantial evidence is that which a reasonable person may accept as adequate to sustain a judgment. Id. Based on our review of the record and given that the parties agree the award was improper, we conclude that the district court abused its discretion in awarding Chandra $4,750.00 as an equalization payment.
We note that, after perfecting this appeal, William filed a post-trial motion for remand and modification in the district court. Following a hearing on the motion, the district court acknowledged its award was improper and certified its intent to correct the decree upon a remand from this court. However, because William failed to follow the proper procedure for obtaining a remand from this court pursuant to Huneycutt v. Huneycutt, 94 Nev. 79, 80-81, 575 P.2d 585, 586 (1978), as clarified by Foster v. Dingwall, 126 Nev. 49, 52-53, 228 P.3d 453, 455-56 (2010), we resolve this appeal on the merits.
Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court REVERSED AND REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with this order.
Insofar as the parties raise arguments that are not specifically addressed in this order, we have considered the same and conclude that they either do not present a basis for relief or need not be reached given the disposition of this appeal. --------
/s/_________, C.J.
Gibbons
/s/_________, J.
Tao
/s/_________, J.
Bulla cc: Hon. Rebecca Burton, District Judge, Family Court Division
Serrano Law Group, PLLC
Chandra Lynn LaCost
Eighth District Court Clerk