Tieman v. Tieman (Child Custody)

 court must make when determining a spousal support award, including
the financial condition of each spouse, income and earning capacity of each
spouse, and the contribution of either spouse as homemaker). This court
will affirm a spousal support award if it is supported by substantial
evidence. Devries v. Gallio, 128 Nev. , 290 P.3d 260, 263 (2012)
(defining substantial evidence as "that which a sensible person may
accept as adequate to sustain a judgment." (quoting Williams v. Williams,
120 Nev. 559, 566, 97 P.3d 1124, 1129 (2004))).
In awarding spousal support, the district court found that
respondent is originally from Peru and was trained there as an attorney.
After marrying appellant and moving to the United States, respondent
had two children and began working part-time for Deseret Industries
making $1,215 per month and earning an additional $300 per month from
babysitting. Respondent's ability to speak English is limited, and she is
not licensed as an attorney in Nevada. As for appellant's income, the
district court found that he owned a successful business. While the
district court found that it was unable to determine appellant's "true"
income because he kept insufficient business records, the court considered
expert testimony introduced by respondent concerning appellant's income
and revenue from his business. The record as a whole demonstrates that
the district court considered the relevant factors and did not abuse its
discretion in awarding spousal support.'
lAppellant requested a transcript of the evidentiary hearing, but
failed to serve the court reporter, or pay for the transcripts. NRAP
9(a)(3)(3), (4). Appellant has the burden of providing this court with an
adequate appellate record, see Carson Ready Mix, Inc. v. First Nat'l Bank
of Nev., 97 Nev. 474, 476, 635 P.2d 276, 277 (1981), and any evidence not
continued on next page . . .
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
Next, appellant contends that the district court allowed
respondent to submit several late filings. Appellant fails to identify how
he was prejudiced or harmed by any late filings, nor does he request any
relief. Thus, any error was harmless and does not warrant reversal.
NRCP 61; Wyeth v. Rowatt, 126 Nev. „ 244 P.3d 765, 778 (2010)
(stating that an error that does not affect a party's substantial rights does
not warrant reversal).
Finally, appellant contends that the district court abused its
discretion in awarding respondent $20,000 in attorney fees in addition to
the attorney fees previously awarded and that the award was not
reasonable under Brunzell v. Golden Gate National Bank, 85 Nev. 345,
349-50, 455 P.2d 31, 33 (1969). Having reviewed the record, we conclude
that the district court was presented with sufficient evidence and
arguments relating to the amount of attorney fees and the Brunzell factors
to make its determination and that the district court referred to Brunzell
in the decree. Additionally, the record demonstrates that respondent's
attorney was an able advocate, the work was difficult, the result was
favorable to respondent, and counsel provided respondent with a
significant amount of services. The record also demonstrates a disparity
of income between the parties. See NRS 125.150(3) (giving the district
court authority to grant attorney fees in divorce proceedings); Miller v.
Wilfong, 121 Nev. 619, 624-25, 119 P.3d 727, 731 (2005) (finding attorney
. . continued
provided in the record on appeal is presumed to support the district court's
decision. Cuzze v. Univ. & Cmty. Coll. Sys. of Nev., 123 Nev. 598, 603, 172
P.3d 131, 135 (2007).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A e
fee awards reasonable when the record supported the Brunzell factors and
the district court found an income disparity); Wright v. Osburn, 114 Nev.
1367, 1370, 970 P.2d 1071, 1073 (1998) (finding disparity of income a
factor of consideration when awarding attorney fees). Thus, the district
court's award of attorney fees was reasonable and not an abuse of
discretion.
For the reasons stated above, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 2
. ering
Pp
--ranitatists,v„„es.ant., J.
Parraguirre
J.
Saitta
cc: Chief Judge, The Eighth Judicial District Court
Hon. Jack B. Ames, Senior Judge
Michael Tieman
Radford J. Smith, Chtd.
Eighth District Court Clerk
the extent appellant challenges the district court's refusal to
2 To
modify the spousal support award, based on a change in income after this
appeal was filed, that issue is not properly before this court.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A OD