Viallet-Volk v. Volk

l 114 Nev. 416, 422, 956 P.2d 761, 764 (1998). The district court's factua er v. findings must be supported by substantial evidence, see Shydl that Shydler, 114 Nev. 192, 196, 954 P.2d 37, 39 (1998), which is evidence Ellis a reasonable person may accept as adequate to sustain a judgment. ially v. Carucci, 123 Nev. 145, 149, 161 P.3d 239, 242 (2007). Judic sanctioned spousal support may be modified upon a showing of changed is circumstances. NRS 125.150(7). Here, the record reveals that there substantial evidence supporting the district court's findings that appellant's health conditions and her income-earning prospects had not changed from the time that the support award was made and that appellant failed to establish changed circumstances. Additionally, appellant has not demonstrated that the district court should have held an evidentiary hearing on the matter. Cf. Rooney v. Rooney, 109 Nev. 540, is 542-43, 853 P.2d 123, 124-25 (1993) (providing that if a moving party y unable to make out a prima facie case for modification of a child custod award, the court may resolve a motion without holding an evidentiary hearing). Thus, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its See discretion in denying appellant's request to modify spousal support. Gilman, 114 Nev. at 422, 956 P.2d at 764. Appellant also argues that the district court improperly denied her request for tort and contract civil remedies for respondent's violation of of the terms of the marital settlement agreement and memorandum agreement incorporated into the divorce decree. By the terms of the to divorce decree, respondent took the marital home and was required refinance the mortgage in order to remove appellant as an obligor. At the

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A

time appellant filed her motion for tort and contract remedies, respondent had not succeeded in removing appellant from the mortgage. While the family court division of the district court has see jurisdiction to adjudicate claims outside the scope of NRS 3.223, lant's Landreth v. Malik, 127 Nev. , 251 P.3d 163, 164 (2011), appel tort and contract claims were improperly raised in a post-judgment should be motion. See generally NRCP 8 (explaining that claims for relief set forward in a pleading); NRCP 15 (providing when a pleading may be al amended and supplemented). Additionally, because the marit settlement agreement and memorandum of agreement were incorporated and merged into the divorce decree, any attempt to enforce these 80 agreements under contract principles is improper. See Day v. Day, r Nev. 386, 389-90, 395 P.2d 321, 322-23 (1964) (explaining that the merge of an agreement into a divorce decree destroys the independent existence d of the agreement). Accordingly, the district court properly denie appellant's tort and contract claims. Finally, appellant argues that the district court abused its 's discretion by not reducing her obligation to pay the parties' child unreimbursed medical expenses to only five percent of the cost incurred. t Because there is substantial evidence in the record supporting the distric court's findings that there was no change in circumstances warranting the modification and that appellant was able to pay the amount ordered in the divorce decree, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the request to reduce appellant's support obligation 1015, for the child's medical expenses. See Wallace v. Wallace, 112 Nev.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A air>

minor 1019, 922 P.2d 541, 543 (1996) ("Matters of custody and support of children rest in the sound discretion of the trial court."). For the reasons discussed above, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.'

J. Pickering

1:24)1 , J. Parra:2r

J. Saitta

ion cc: Hon. William B. Gonzalez, District Judge, Family Court Divis Carolyn Worrell, Settlement Judge Roberts Stoffel Family Law Group Sklar Williams LLP Eighth District Court Clerk

'To the extent that appellant's arguments are not addressed by this order, we conclude that they lack merit.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 4 (0) 1 94Th elpoo