## Facts

- Wife entered the marriage with substantial separate assets, including rental properties and an investment account exceeding $100,000, and had been a well-paid federal employee.
- The trial court found wife was self-supporting and did not expect or depend on husband for financial support before or during the marriage.
- The marriage was short; the parties separated after about two years (divorce entered roughly three years after marriage).
- Husband, an attorney, earned a large contingent legal fee during the marriage, structured as an annuity with increasing monthly payments (about $3,700 per month at the time of trial) continuing until 2004; the annuity’s present value was about $713,000.
- The trial court classified the contingent fee annuity as community property.
- The trial court divided most community property equally but awarded 80% of the fee annuity to husband and 20% to wife.
- The trial court found the annuity was a substantial portion of husband’s law-practice income and could be viewed as a rare, once-in-a-lifetime payment, while wife could maintain her lifestyle after divorce using her separate property and earnings.

## Issues

1. Whether NRS 125.150(1)’s requirement that community property be distributed in a “just and equitable” manner mandates equal division or creates a presumption of equal division.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by awarding husband 80% and wife 20% of a community-property contingent fee annuity.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed the community-property division.
- The court held that “just and equitable” under NRS 125.150(1) does not require an equal division and does not create a presumption of equality.
- The court held the 80/20 allocation of the contingent fee annuity was within the district court’s discretion given the statutory factors and supported findings, including the short marriage, wife’s separate wealth and lack of need for support, and the annuity’s centrality to husband’s income.

## Legal Principles

- Under NRS 125.150(1), a court must divide community property in a manner that is “just and equitable,” considering statutory factors such as the parties’ respective merits, the condition in which they will be left by the divorce, and the party through whom the property was acquired.
- Nevada law does not require equal division of community property and does not apply a presumption that community assets must be divided equally.
- Appellate review of community property division under NRS 125.150(1) is deferential; an unequal division will be upheld if grounded in appropriate findings tied to the statutory factors and supported by substantial evidence.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a markedly unequal distribution of a community-property contingent fee annuity, clarifying that Nevada’s “just and equitable” standard permits departures from equality when supported by the statutory considerations and the parties’ post-divorce circumstances.


McNabney v. McNabney, 782 P.2d 1291 (Nev. 1989)