Lofgren v. Lofgren
926 P.2d 296, 1996 Nev. LEXIS 153, 112 Nev. 1282 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Intentional financial misconduct by one spouse, such as wasting or secreting community assets in violation of a court order, constitutes a compelling reason under Nevada statute NRS 125.150 to make an unequal disposition of the remaining community property.
Facts:
- Linda Lofgren and Benjamin Lofgren were parties in a divorce proceeding.
- During the divorce, Benjamin Lofgren transferred $100,000 in community funds to his father.
- Although his father returned a portion of the money, $39,800 remained unaccounted for, which the court found Benjamin had either wasted or secreted.
- Benjamin Lofgren also used $17,000 of community funds for his personal use.
- He used an additional $21,200 of community funds to improve and furnish a house that was his separate property.
- He transferred another $13,000 in community funds to his father and gave $5,000 to his children without court consent.
- In total, Benjamin Lofgren dissipated or secreted approximately $96,000 of community assets.
Procedural Posture:
- Linda Lofgren and Benjamin Lofgren were parties to a divorce action in a Nevada district court (the trial court).
- The trial court issued a joint preliminary injunction prohibiting the parties from transferring or otherwise disposing of community property.
- The trial court found that Benjamin Lofgren violated the injunction, wasting and/or secreting approximately $96,000 in community assets.
- Based on this finding, the trial court ordered an unequal disposition of the community property, awarding Linda Lofgren a share greater than 50% to compensate for the dissipated funds.
- Linda Lofgren appealed on unrelated issues, and Benjamin Lofgren (cross-appellant) cross-appealed to the Supreme Court of Nevada, challenging the trial court's unequal property division.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a spouse's intentional financial misconduct, including the wasting and secreting of community assets in violation of a court order, constitute a 'compelling reason' under NRS 125.150 to justify an unequal disposition of community property?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Springer
Yes. A spouse's intentional financial misconduct is a compelling reason under NRS 125.150 to order an unequal disposition of community property. The court reasoned that the 1993 amendment to the statute, which replaced the 'equitable division' standard with a mandate for 'equal disposition' unless 'compelling reasons' exist, did not define those reasons. This case establishes that if community property is lost, expended, or destroyed through the intentional misconduct of one spouse, the court is justified in deviating from a 50/50 split. Here, Benjamin Lofgren's actions of transferring, wasting, and secreting nearly $100,000 of community assets in defiance of a court order amounted to such misconduct. Therefore, the trial court acted properly by augmenting Linda Lofgren's share of the remaining community property to compensate her for her portion of the dissipated assets.
Analysis:
This decision provides the first judicial interpretation of the 'compelling reasons' exception to Nevada's equal-disposition community property statute. It formally establishes financial dissipation or waste as a valid ground for unequal property division, aligning Nevada with a doctrine recognized in many other states. The ruling gives trial courts clear authority to hold a spouse financially accountable for misconduct during divorce proceedings, thereby deterring spouses from attempting to hide or waste assets. This precedent strengthens the ability of courts to achieve a fair, rather than a merely mathematically equal, outcome in property division.
