## Facts

- John Wheeler and Ruthann Upton-Wheeler married in 1982 and litigated a Nevada divorce filed in 1993.
- After a 1994 trial, the district court admitted photographs showing bruises on Ruthann over John’s objection, limiting their use to whether an unequal division of community property was warranted.
- The divorce judgment awarded joint legal custody and physical custody of the child to John, with visitation to Ruthann.
- The court set Ruthann’s child-support obligation at $436 per month for two years.
- The court awarded the family residence to John, requiring him to pay Ruthann $18,500 for her half of the equity; $10,000 was due by a set date, and the remaining $8,500 was credited against Ruthann’s child-support obligation at $436 per month.
- Based on a finding of an abusive relationship and a “compelling reason” to depart from equal division, the court made an unequal division of community property.
- As an additional “consequence” to John for the alleged abuse, the court further ordered that after the $8,500 credit was exhausted Ruthann would owe no additional child support.
- John moved for a new trial and to set aside the judgment under NRCP 59 and 60; the district court denied relief, and John appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by deviating from Nevada’s child-support guidelines without adequate written findings and by effectively eliminating child support as a sanction for spousal abuse.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion in making an unequal division of community property based on spousal abuse as a “compelling reason.”
3. Whether admitting the abuse photographs and denying relief under NRCP 59 and 60 constituted reversible error.

## Decision

- Affirmed the unequal division of community property based on the district court’s finding of spousal abuse as a compelling reason.
- Reversed the child-support ruling to the extent it eliminated Ruthann’s obligation beyond the $8,500 credit.
- Remanded for recalculation of child support consistent with Nevada’s statutory scheme and required findings for any deviation.
- Affirmed the denial of NRCP 59/60 relief except as inconsistent with the corrected child-support determination.
- Held the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the photographs for the limited purpose stated.

## Legal Principles

- Nevada child-support guideline amounts are presumptively correct; deviation requires written findings explaining why the guideline amount is unjust or inappropriate under statutory factors.
- Child support must be determined based on the child’s interests and the parents’ financial circumstances, not used as punishment for marital misconduct or as a device to reallocate property.
- Nevada community property is generally divided equally, but a court may order an unequal division for “compelling reasons”; supported findings of spousal abuse may constitute such a reason.
- Decisions on child support, property division, evidentiary rulings, and NRCP 59/60 motions are reviewed for abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The court approved spousal abuse as a compelling reason for unequal community-property division but held that child support cannot be waived to punish a parent or to supplement property distribution; any departure from guideline support requires proper written findings under Nevada’s child-support statutes.


Wheeler v. Upton-Wheeler, 113 Nev. 1185, 946 P.2d 200 (Nev. 1997)