Wright v. Osburn
1998 Nev. LEXIS 158, 970 P.2d 1071, 114 Nev. 1367 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a joint physical custody arrangement, child support is calculated using an offset method: calculate the statutory obligation for each parent based on their gross income, then the higher-earning parent pays the difference between the two amounts to the lower-earning parent.
Facts:
- Sandra D. Wright and David L. Osburn were married in April 1982 and had three children.
- Both parties graduated from Brigham Young University in 1983; Sandra obtained a design degree and David a business degree.
- After graduation, Sandra worked while David obtained his master's degree in business administration.
- In 1984, Sandra became a full-time homemaker and primary caretaker for the children, enabling David to establish his career.
- At the time of their divorce in 1996, David's gross monthly income was $5,177, while Sandra, then employed as a secretary, had a gross monthly income of $1,600.
- Following the divorce, David purchased a large home while Sandra lived in an apartment.
Procedural Posture:
- Sandra D. Wright and David L. Osburn were divorced in a Nevada district court (trial court).
- The district court awarded the parties joint physical custody and ordered David to pay Sandra $300 per month in child support and $500 per month for five years in rehabilitative spousal support.
- The district court denied Sandra's request for attorney fees.
- Sandra (appellant) appealed the district court's orders regarding child support, spousal support, and attorney fees to the Supreme Court of Nevada, with David (appellee) as 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:
In a joint physical custody arrangement with parents of disparate incomes, does Nevada's statutory child support framework require calculation using an offset method, where the higher-earning parent pays the lower-earning parent the difference between their respective statutory obligations?
Opinions:
Majority - Shearing, J.
Yes. In joint physical custody cases, the statutory framework requires courts to calculate each parent's child support obligation based on their gross income and then require the higher-earning parent to pay the difference to the lower-earning parent. The court's previous guidance in Barbagallo v. Barbagallo resulted in inconsistent decisions, contrary to the legislative goal of uniformity and predictability. Returning to the statutes (NRS 125B.020 and NRS 125B.070), the court concluded that each parent has an independent obligation to support their children based on a percentage of their income. The offset method best embodies this principle in a shared custody situation, ensuring a more comparable lifestyle for the children in both households. The court also held that the district court abused its discretion in its spousal support and attorney fees awards, as they were not 'just and equitable' given the significant income disparity and Sandra's contributions to David's career.
Dissenting - Springer, C. J.
No. The statutory framework does not require this specific offset method, and the court should not invent a new formula that is properly a legislative function. The majority 'conjures out of thin air' a new rule without a basis in law or reason, overturning the trial court which correctly followed existing precedent from Barbagallo. This new, judicially-created formula is excessive and imposes an unfair burden on the higher-earning parent. The dissent fears this will deter higher-earning parents from agreeing to joint custody arrangements, which is ultimately detrimental to the best interests of children. The court should have affirmed the trial court's discretionary and equitable award.
Analysis:
This decision fundamentally changed Nevada's approach to child support in joint custody cases by replacing a discretionary standard with a rigid, mathematical formula known as the 'offset method' or the 'Wright v. Osburn formula.' This provides certainty and consistency for future litigants but removes judicial flexibility to account for unique circumstances not explicitly listed as statutory deviations. The dissent's concern highlights the tension between predictable rules and equitable, case-by-case justice, suggesting the new formula may have unintended negative consequences on custody negotiations. The ruling also underscores that spousal support must equitably account for a spouse's non-monetary contributions, such as enabling the other's career advancement.
