Ehlers v. Ehlers (Child Custody) ( 2014 )

 conclude that the district court's findings as to the parties' respective
incomes are supported by substantial evidence, see Shydler v. Shydler, 114
Nev. 192, 196, 954 P.2d 37, 39 (1998), and that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in calculating the child support and spousal support
awards. See Wallace v. Wallace, 112 Nev. 1015, 1019, 922 P.2d 541, 543
(1996) (holding that a district court's order concerning child support will
not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion); Wolff v. Wolff, 112 Nev.
1355, 1359, 929 P.2d 916, 918-19 (1996) (explaining that this court reviews
the district court's spousal support order for an abuse of discretion).
Appellant also contends that the district court abused its
discretion in ordering him to pay respondent her share of his retirement
benefits upon his retirement eligibility, if he chooses to continue working.
Appellant argues that respondent's receipt of those benefits upon his
retirement eligibility, but before his retirement, was not discussed at trial
and was improperly added to the divorce decree. Appellant, however, fails
to provide this court with the trial transcripts. He has an obligation to
provide this court with an adequate appellant record. Thus, we assume
the missing transcripts support the district court's decision. See
Raishbrook v. Estate of Bayley, 90 Nev. 415, 416, 528 P.2d 1331, 1331
(1974) (providing that this court assumes evidence omitted from the record
supports the district court's judgment). Accordingly, we conclude that the
district court did not abuse its discretion when devising the distribution of
the parties' interests in appellant's retirement benefits earned during the
marriage. See Gemma v. Gemma, 105 Nev. 458, 464, 778 P.2d 429, 432
(1989) (providing that the nonemployee spouse can receive his or her share
of the retirement benefits upon the employee spouse's eligibility to retire);
see also Wolff, 112 Nev. at 1359, 929 P.2d at 918-19.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0 1947A e
Lastly, appellant challenges the portion of the divorce decree
holding him in contempt and imposing sanctions for failing to pay ten
mortgage payments on the marital home and ordering him to pay
respondent the amount of the missed payments. Although appellant
argues that contempt was improper because his failure to pay the
mortgage payments benefitted both parties by qualifying them for a
federal program that assists borrowers in reducing or eliminating a
deficiency judgment related to a foreclosure or short sale, he does not
argue that he was unaware of or unable to comply with the district court's
order. As appellant violated the district court's order, we conclude that
the district court properly held him in contempt and imposed sanctions.
See Div. of Child and Family Serv. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120
Nev. 445, 454-55, 92 P.3d 1239, 1245-46 (2004) (explaining that a person
can be held in contempt when he or she violates the obligation imposed by
the court in a clear and unambiguous order). Further, the record indicates
that appellant was originally ordered to make payments on the marital
home, in which respondent and the children resided, as a form of
temporary spousal support. Thus, we conclude that the district court did
not abuse its discretion in ordering appellant to pay respondent the value
of the missed mortgage payments as spousal support arrears. Wolff, 112
Nev. at 1359, 929 P.2d at 918-19.
For the reasons set forth above, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
J.
Parraguirre Saitta
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A e
cc: Hon. Bryce C. Duckworth, District Judge, Family Court Division
Eric E. Ehlers
Thomas J. Fitzpatrick
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1941A ce