LIN v. LIN (2021)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

In the proceedings below, the parties were divorced by way of a decree of divorce entered in October 2018. Notably, the decree adopted and incorporated the parties’ memorandum of understanding (MOU), which resolved the division of some, but not all, of the parties’ assets and debts, and the district court resolved the remaining issues. Following entry of the decree, Dexin appealed and respondent Anna Lin cross-appealed. As a result of that appeal, this court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the matter back to the district court. See Lin v. Lin, Docket No. 77351-COA (Order Affirming in Part, Reversing in Part and Remanding, March 30, 2020). In the order, this court reversed and remanded for the district court to make additional findings of fact regarding the division of community property and for the district court to correctly divide the community interest in the marital residence, which was Dexin's separate property prior to marriage. Id.

On remand, the district court entered an order making additional findings of fact and conclusions of law, filed on May 28, 2020. In it, the district court found that the parties agreed to the division of property set forth in the MOU and adopted by the district court in the decree of divorce, such that even if the distribution of assets and debts was unequal, the division was warranted in light of the parties’ stipulation. Regarding the community interest in the marital residence, the district court concluded that the only evidence presented at trial was that one mortgage payment, in the amount of $2,230.02, was made during the marriage. Although the court concluded that this was insufficient to determine how many mortgage payments were made during the marriage, and what portion of those payments went to reducing the principal, the court ultimately held that it would conclude the entire $2,230.02 payment went to paying down principal. Accordingly, the court awarded Anna $1,115.01 as her one-half of the community interest in the marital residence.

Anna then filed a motion to amend the May 28 order pursuant to NRCP 59, or in the alternative, for relief from the May 28 order pursuant to NRCP 60. In her motion, Anna argued that the parties had not agreed to an unequal distribution of community property in the MOU and that the MOU specifically indicated that the property distribution was unequal and contemplated an equalization payment, but because not all of the issues were resolved by the MOU, the parties could not agree as to the amount of the equalization payment and they were relying on the district court to order an equalization payment at the time it entered the decree on the remaining issues. She likewise argued that she admitted evidence during trial demonstrating that the community made mortgage payments during the marriage and reduced the principal balance by $70,941.70, thereby entitling Anna to $35,470.85 for her one-half of the community interest. Dexin opposed, arguing that Anna's motion, pursuant to NRCP 59, was untimely, that Anna was not entitled to an equalization payment if his debts were considered, and that he paid down the mortgage principal with separate funds such that Anna was not entitled to the amount she sought as her interest in the community portion of the marital residence. After two hearings, the district court concluded that Anna was entitled to an equalization payment of $43,486.70, which the district court found was contemplated by the MOU that was previously adopted by the court, such that the court was only clarifying what it previously ordered. The court also concluded that Anna had presented evidence as to the amount the community paid down the mortgage principal on the marital residence and that she was entitled to $35,470 as her one-half interest in the community portion of the residence. This appeal followed.

On appeal, Dexin challenges the district court's orders entered after remand, asserting that the district court failed to consider the separate and community debt he is required to pay and that some of the assets were his separate property in calculating the amount of the equalization payment and that he paid down the mortgage principal with his separate funds, such that Anna was not entitled to $35,470 as her one-half interest of the community portion of the residence. This court reviews the district court's division of property for an abuse of discretion. Schwartz v. Schwartz, 126 Nev. 87, 90, 225 P.3d 1273, 1275 (2010). And this court will not disturb a district court's decision that is supported by substantial evidence. Williams v. Williams, 120 Nev. 559, 566, 97 P.3d 1124, 1129 (2004). Substantial evidence is that which a reasonable person may accept as adequate to sustain a judgment. Id.

First, as to Dexin's assertion that the district court's conclusion that Anna was entitled to an equalization payment failed to consider all of his debts and that some of the assets were his separate property in calculating the equalization payment, such that the property distribution is unequal, we discern no abuse of discretion. See Schwartz, 126 Nev. at 90, 225 P.3d at 1275. Based on this court's review of the record, the district court considered the parties’ arguments and the evidence before it in concluding that the MOU specifically contemplated an equalization payment and, in clarifying its prior order, awarded Anna an equalization payment of $43,486.70. Because substantial evidence in the record supports the district court's conclusion, we cannot say the district court abused its discretion in ordering an equalization payment. See Williams, 120 Nev. at 566, 97 P.3d at 1129.

Next, Dexin asserts that he paid down the mortgage principal on the marital residence with his separate property, such that the community did not reduce the principal balance by $70,941.70. The district court considered Dexin's argument as to this issue and concluded that he presented no evidence to support his argument that he paid down the mortgage principal with his separate funds, above what had already been considered by the court in determining what portion of the mortgage balance was paid down with community funds. Based on this finding along with the evidence submitted by Anna at trial demonstrating that the community made mortgage payments during the marriage, we cannot conclude that the district court abused its discretion concluding that Anna was entitled to one-half of the amount the community paid toward the mortgage principal on the marital residence. See Schwartz, 126 Nev. at 90, 225 P.3d at 1275; Williams, 120 Nev. at 566, 97 P.3d at 1129.

Based on the foregoing, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.¹

FOOTNOTES

1.   As to Dexin's assertions that the district court erred in its decisions as to the parties’ competing claims of community waste, this court previously affirmed those determinations in the prior appeal. See Lin v. Lin, Docket No. 77351-COA (Order Affirming in Part, Reversing in Part and Remanding, March 30, 2020). Thus, we will not revisit those issues now. See Hsu v. Cty. of Clark, 123 Nev. 625, 629-30, 173 P.3d 724, 728 (2007) (“Under the law of the case doctrine, when an appellate court states a principle or rule of law necessary to a decision, the principle or rule becomes the law of the case and must be followed throughout its subsequent progress, both in the lower court and upon subsequent appeal.” (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted)). We have likewise considered Dexin's remaining arguments on appeal and conclude that they either do not present a basis for relief or need not be reached given the disposition of this appeal.