Shydler v. Shydler
1998 Nev. LEXIS 18, 114 Nev. 192, 954 P.2d 37 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court-ordered division of community property, even if paid in installments, serves a different legal purpose than spousal support (alimony) and cannot be used as a substitute to deny a just and equitable alimony award. Alimony is intended to address post-divorce needs and earning disparities, while a property award divides assets to which a spouse is already legally entitled.
Facts:
- Thomas J. Shydler ('Tom') and Alicia Margarita Shydler ('Margaret') married in 1976.
- During their 17-year marriage, Tom built a highly successful construction company, Aztec, which generated substantial profits and allowed him to earn over $100,000 annually.
- Margaret worked as an insurance underwriter and later founded her own insurance company, Alamo, which struggled financially and required loans from Tom's company to stay afloat.
- Tom's heavy drinking led to three DUI convictions and the revocation of his driver's license, requiring Margaret to drive him for ten months, which she claimed interfered with her work.
- Margaret was a frequent gambler and won over $60,000 after the divorce complaint was filed.
- The parties disputed ownership of a property known as Lot 54; Tom claimed Margaret transferred her interest to him in exchange for her right to keep her gambling winnings.
- Tom and Margaret separated in March 1992.
Procedural Posture:
- Tom Shydler filed for divorce from Margaret Shydler in a Nevada district court in March 1992.
- A domestic relations referee recommended, and the district court affirmed, temporary spousal support for Margaret.
- The case was reassigned to a family court judge who increased the temporary spousal support award pending trial.
- Following trial, the family court entered a final divorce decree that divided the community property, awarding Margaret an equalizing payment of $215,798 in monthly installments, but denied her any permanent spousal support.
- Margaret Shydler, the appellant, appealed the family court's final decree to the Supreme Court of Nevada; Tom Shydler is the respondent.
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 court abuse its discretion by treating a spouse's share of community property, paid in installments, as a substitute for post-divorce spousal support?
Opinions:
Majority - Shearing, J.
Yes. A court abuses its discretion by treating a community property award as a substitute for spousal support. Alimony and property division serve distinct purposes: a property award divides assets to which a spouse is legally entitled, while alimony serves the equitable purpose of meeting post-divorce needs and narrowing large gaps in earning capacity. The trial court's decision was unfair because it forced Margaret to dissipate her share of the community property for living expenses, while Tom's share was an income-producing business. Citing the seven Sprenger factors and the significant disparity in the parties' post-divorce earning potential, the court found that the equities favored an award of spousal support. The court also held that the trial court exceeded its authority by placing community property (the collections) into a trust for their son for a purpose other than child support.
Dissenting - Springer, C. J.
No. The trial court acted within its discretion in denying post-divorce spousal support. The trial court was in the best position to weigh the equities and made a specific finding that the wife would have 'sufficient funds' with which to support herself, given her earning capacity of around $60,000 per year. The majority is improperly 'second-guessing' the trial judge. Regarding the toy soldier collection, the trial court was justified in awarding the 'few fragments' left to the father in trust for the son, especially given evidence that Margaret may have damaged them and that some of the property was separate or belonged to the son already.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the fundamental distinction between property division and spousal support in divorce proceedings. It establishes that a court cannot use an equalizing payment from a property settlement as a rationale for denying alimony, especially in a long-term marriage with a significant disparity in earning capacity. The decision reinforces the principle that alimony's purpose is to ensure the lower-earning spouse can live 'as nearly as fairly possible' to their marital standard of living and to address post-divorce needs, a purpose distinct from the legal entitlement to a share of marital assets. This precedent prevents courts from effectively forcing one spouse to spend down their property award for basic support while the other retains income-producing assets.
Unlock the full brief for Shydler v. Shydler