Opinion
No. 61861
02-13-2014
MICAYLA BONNER N/K/A MICAYLA L. KELSEY, Appellant, v. JOSHUA BONNER, Respondent.
An unpublished order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority. SCR 123.
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
This is a proper person appeal from a district court divorce decree. Fourth Judicial District Court, Elko County; Alvin R. Kacin, Judge.
On appeal, appellant challenges the spousal support award. In the divorce decree, respondent was ordered to pay appellant $500 in spousal support each pay period for five years, for a total of $65,000. The district court found that appellant is 100-percent disabled and will likely never work again. The district court, however, concluded that the spousal support amount was just and equitable because respondent is solely responsible for the parties' two children's medical costs and one of the children has a major medical condition.
Having considered the civil proper person appeal statement and the record on appeal, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting appellant's spousal support award to $65,000 over a five-year period, as it considered the relevant statutory factors in determining an amount of spousal support that would be just and equitable. See 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); see also NRS 125.150(1), (8)-(9) (providing that a court may award spousal support that is just and equitable and outlining the factors the court should consider in determining a spousal support award). While appellant's inability to work may generally warrant a larger spousal support award, the district court considered each party's financial condition and respondent's obligation for the children's extensive medical costs. The district court recognized the need to ensure that respondent's spousal support obligation would not diminish his ability to care for the parties' two children. Thus, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting appellant's spousal support to five years. Wolff, 112 Nev. at 1359, 929 P.2d at 918-19.
Appellant also argues that the district court abused its discretion in failing to require respondent to provide her with her spousal support payment before the end of business on each of his paydays. The record, however, demonstrates that appellant did not raise this issue in the district court, and thus, it is waived on appeal. See Old Aztec Mine, Inc. v. Brown, 97 Nev. 49, 52, 623 P.2d 981, 983 (1981) (recognizing that arguments not presented to the district court are considered waived on appeal). Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
__________, J.
Pickering
__________, J.
Parraguirre
__________, J.
Saitta
cc: Hon. Alvin R. Kacin, District Judge
Micayla Bonner
Hillewaert Law Firm
Elko County Clerk