Tieman v. Tieman (Child Custody)

court must make when determining a spousal support award, including the financial condition of each spouse, income and earning capacity of each spouse, and the contribution of either spouse as homemaker). This court will affirm a spousal support award if it is supported by substantial evidence. Devries v. Gallio, 128 Nev. , 290 P.3d 260, 263 (2012) (defining substantial evidence as "that which a sensible person may accept as adequate to sustain a judgment." (quoting Williams v. Williams, 120 Nev. 559, 566, 97 P.3d 1124, 1129 (2004))). In awarding spousal support, the district court found that respondent is originally from Peru and was trained there as an attorney. After marrying appellant and moving to the United States, respondent had two children and began working part-time for Deseret Industries making $1,215 per month and earning an additional $300 per month from babysitting. Respondent's ability to speak English is limited, and she is not licensed as an attorney in Nevada. As for appellant's income, the district court found that he owned a successful business. While the district court found that it was unable to determine appellant's "true" income because he kept insufficient business records, the court considered expert testimony introduced by respondent concerning appellant's income and revenue from his business. The record as a whole demonstrates that the district court considered the relevant factors and did not abuse its discretion in awarding spousal support.'

lAppellant requested a transcript of the evidentiary hearing, but failed to serve the court reporter, or pay for the transcripts. NRAP 9(a)(3)(3), (4). Appellant has the burden of providing this court with an adequate appellate record, see Carson Ready Mix, Inc. v. First Nat'l Bank of Nev., 97 Nev. 474, 476, 635 P.2d 276, 277 (1981), and any evidence not continued on next page . . .

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A

Next, appellant contends that the district court allowed respondent to submit several late filings. Appellant fails to identify how he was prejudiced or harmed by any late filings, nor does he request any relief. Thus, any error was harmless and does not warrant reversal. NRCP 61; Wyeth v. Rowatt, 126 Nev. „ 244 P.3d 765, 778 (2010) (stating that an error that does not affect a party's substantial rights does not warrant reversal). Finally, appellant contends that the district court abused its discretion in awarding respondent $20,000 in attorney fees in addition to the attorney fees previously awarded and that the award was not reasonable under Brunzell v. Golden Gate National Bank, 85 Nev. 345, 349-50, 455 P.2d 31, 33 (1969). Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the district court was presented with sufficient evidence and arguments relating to the amount of attorney fees and the Brunzell factors to make its determination and that the district court referred to Brunzell in the decree. Additionally, the record demonstrates that respondent's attorney was an able advocate, the work was difficult, the result was favorable to respondent, and counsel provided respondent with a significant amount of services. The record also demonstrates a disparity of income between the parties. See NRS 125.150(3) (giving the district court authority to grant attorney fees in divorce proceedings); Miller v. Wilfong, 121 Nev. 619, 624-25, 119 P.3d 727, 731 (2005) (finding attorney

. . continued

provided in the record on appeal is presumed to support the district court's decision. Cuzze v. Univ. & Cmty. Coll. Sys. of Nev., 123 Nev. 598, 603, 172 P.3d 131, 135 (2007).

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A e

fee awards reasonable when the record supported the Brunzell factors and the district court found an income disparity); Wright v. Osburn, 114 Nev. 1367, 1370, 970 P.2d 1071, 1073 (1998) (finding disparity of income a factor of consideration when awarding attorney fees). Thus, the district court's award of attorney fees was reasonable and not an abuse of discretion. For the reasons stated above, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 2

. ering Pp

--ranitatists,v„„es.ant., J. Parraguirre

J. Saitta

cc: Chief Judge, The Eighth Judicial District Court Hon. Jack B. Ames, Senior Judge Michael Tieman Radford J. Smith, Chtd. Eighth District Court Clerk

the extent appellant challenges the district court's refusal to 2 To modify the spousal support award, based on a change in income after this appeal was filed, that issue is not properly before this court.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 4 (0) 1947A OD