Sprenger v. Sprenger
110 Nev. 855, 1994 Nev. LEXIS 105, 878 P.2d 284 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An alimony award constitutes an abuse of discretion if it is not 'just and equitable' and fails to allow a spouse from a long-term marriage to live as nearly as possible to the station in life they enjoyed before the divorce. Separately, transmutation of separate property to community property requires clear and convincing evidence, and a spouse's signature on business documents alone is insufficient to meet this standard.
Facts:
- Barbara Sprenger and Henry 'By' Sprenger were married in 1970.
- Before the marriage, By owned 500 shares of stock in a lawn care business, Nevada Lawn Service, which was his separate property.
- Shortly after the marriage, Barbara, a licensed practical nurse, gave up her career to raise the couple's two children.
- During the marriage, the lawn care business sold some of its assets, and the corporation's name was changed to Moana Lane Nursery.
- Barbara's signature appeared on several corporate documents, including a Buy-Sell Agreement as a 'witness' and a Stock Transfer Restriction Agreement as a shareholder.
- By earned approximately $100,000 per year from the business at the time of the divorce.
- The parties divorced in 1991 after nearly 22 years of marriage.
Procedural Posture:
- Barbara Sprenger and Henry 'By' Sprenger initiated divorce proceedings in a Nevada district court (trial court).
- The district court issued a final order determining that By's interest in Moana Lane Nursery was his separate property, though it awarded Barbara half of its value for the 'community investment' into it.
- The district court awarded Barbara alimony of $1,500 per month for a maximum of two years.
- Barbara Sprenger (appellant) appealed the district court's modified order to the Supreme Court of Nevada, challenging the property distribution and the alimony award.
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 district court abuse its discretion by awarding rehabilitative alimony for a maximum of two years to a spouse who sacrificed her career during a 22-year marriage to be a homemaker, where the award does not allow her to maintain a standard of living comparable to that enjoyed during the marriage?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. A district court abuses its discretion when an alimony award is not just and equitable, having regard to the conditions in which the parties will be left by the divorce. The court's reasoning was based on an application of the seven factors established in Fondi v. Fondi. The court found that Barbara gave up her nursing career, was married for nearly 22 years, and her current marketability was not promising despite having 90 university credits. While she received a substantial interest in a family partnership, her minority, non-controlling interest gave her no guarantee of income, leaving her 'at the mercy of By and his parents.' The court concluded that the award of $1,500 per month for a maximum of two years was insufficient and must be increased and extended to allow Barbara to live 'as nearly as fairly possible to the station in life she enjoyed before the divorce' for the rest of her life or until she remarries or her financial circumstances substantially improve. The court affirmed the lower court's finding that the nursery stock was By's separate property, as Barbara's signature on documents did not constitute clear and convincing evidence of transmutation.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the importance of the factors outlined in Fondi v. Fondi for determining alimony in Nevada, particularly for spouses in long-term marriages who sacrificed career opportunities. It establishes that rehabilitative alimony may be insufficient and that permanent alimony is appropriate to ensure the dependent spouse can maintain the marital standard of living. The decision also solidifies the high evidentiary bar—clear and convincing evidence—required to prove transmutation of separate property, clarifying that nominal involvement like signing documents is not enough to convert a separate asset into a community one.
