## Facts

- Robert N. Fick and Bernice W. Fick cohabited beginning in 1981 and married in 1984.
- Shortly before marriage, they signed a written premarital agreement drafted by Robert that included a mutual waiver of alimony.
- The agreement stated that each party attached schedules listing premarital assets and obligations, but Robert did not attach his asset schedule until about one year after execution.
- During the marriage, the parties purchased a Las Vegas home (1986) and an undeveloped Cold Creek, Nevada lot (1988).
- Bernice filed for divorce in 1989.
- After a bench trial, the district court: (1) treated the Cold Creek lot as community property and ordered sale with equal division of proceeds; (2) valued the Las Vegas home at $60,000; (3) held the premarital alimony waiver unenforceable; and (4) awarded Bernice unpaid temporary support, rehabilitative alimony, and attorney’s fees.
- Robert appealed challenges to the lot’s characterization and division, the home valuation, the premarital alimony waiver ruling, and the rehabilitative alimony award.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court erred in treating the Cold Creek lot as community property and ordering its equal division.
2. Whether the district court’s $60,000 valuation of the Las Vegas home was supported by substantial evidence.
3. Whether the premarital agreement’s alimony-waiver provision was enforceable despite incomplete asset disclosure at execution.
4. Whether rehabilitative alimony was properly awarded, and whether the court was required to set a specific retraining time frame.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed the district court’s division of the Cold Creek lot.
- The court affirmed the $60,000 valuation of the Las Vegas home as supported by the evidence and within the district court’s discretion.
- The court affirmed the ruling that the premarital agreement’s alimony waiver was unenforceable because Robert failed to provide timely asset disclosure contemplated by the agreement.
- The court affirmed the award of rehabilitative alimony but remanded for the limited purpose of specifying a time frame for Bernice’s retraining.

## Legal Principles

- Property acquired during marriage is presumed community property, but title in joint tenancy may rebut that presumption; appellate review may be barred where a party fails to preserve a characterization objection at trial.
- Upon divorce, the district court must make a just and equitable division of community property and also may equitably divide property placed in joint tenancy after July 1, 1979. (NRS 125.150(1)(b))
- Valuation of marital property is a factual determination reviewed for substantial evidence and abuse of discretion; a valuation supported by record evidence will be upheld.
- A premarital alimony waiver is unenforceable where the proponent fails to provide fair and reasonable disclosure of assets and obligations at or before execution as contemplated by the agreement and required by premarital-agreement enforceability standards.
- Rehabilitative alimony may be awarded to support retraining and improved earning capacity; when ordering rehabilitative alimony, the court should identify a concrete retraining period so the award is tied to its rehabilitative purpose.

## Conclusion

The Nevada Supreme Court upheld the divorce decree’s property division, home valuation, and refusal to enforce an alimony waiver due to lack of timely disclosure, and it upheld rehabilitative alimony while remanding only to require a defined time period for the recipient spouse’s retraining.


Fick v. Fick, 109 Nev. 458, 851 P.2d 445 (Nev. 1993)