Preview:

district court incorrectly calculated respondent's monthly income and erred by relying on respondent's previous schedule of arrearages. Having considered the parties' arguments and the record on appeal, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the district court's determinations on each of these issues. See Edgington v. Edgington, 119 Nev. 577, 588, 80 P.3d 1282, 1290 (2003) (explaining that this court reviews a district court's child support award for an abuse of discretion); see also Williams v. Williams, 120 Nev. 559, 566, 97 P.3d 1124, 1129 (2004) (providing that if a district court's factual determinations are supported by substantial evidence on appeal, this court will not disturb them). We therefore affirm that portion of the district court's order adjudicating the child support arrearages. In regard to the health care premiums, appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion in ordering him to pay arrearages and in ordering him to pay $112 per month for the health care premium of the parties' younger child. Appellant asserts that the district court erred in calculating the amount he owed in arrearages because the costs of the past health care premiums should have been divided equally between the parties during the periods when they shared custody of the children. Appellant also contends that he had previously attempted to obtain a different health insurance policy for the children and that respondent had refused to sign the forms to allow the change. Thus, he argues that he should not be liable for the health care premiums following respondent's refusal to sign the forms. The divorce decree provided, however, that appellant would be solely responsible for the children's health care premiums, and that obligation has never been modified. Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to permit appellant
SUPREME COURT OF

NEVADA
(0) 1947A

2
II

time to conduct discovery on this issue because respondent submitted substantial evidence establishing the cost of the premiums. Because the record on appeal supports the district court's conclusions as to the amount of the premiums, both past and future, we affirm the district court's order as to the arrearages and as to appellant's ongoing obligation in this regard.
See Edgington, 119 Nev. at 588, 80 P.3d at 1290; see also NRS

125B.020 (requiring a parent to provide a child with health care). Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

J.
Hardesty

Parragu

cc:

Hon. Frank P. Sullivan, District Judge, Family Court Division Michel Lellouche Law Offices of Robert L. Hempen II Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

3

(0) I947A



Download 58242.pdf

Nevada Law