IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
JOSETTE DENISE HOLGUIN, No. 81373
Appellant, FILED
vs.
JOHN ANDRE HOLGUIN, JUL 2 3 1011
Respondent. EL1ZABF i-f A GnOWN
CLER r•.r.
ORDER AFFIRMING IN PART, REVERSING INEP 7117Y CLERK
AND REMANDING
This is an appeal from a decree of divorce.' Eighth Judicial
District Court, Family Court Division, Clark County; Lisa M. Brown, Judge.
First, appellant contends that the district court erred when it
failed to award her a survivorship interest in respondent's PERS retirement
benefit, and that it abused its discretion when it did not make specific
findings in support of that decision. However, Nevada does not consider a
survivorship interest to be a community property asset and, as such, does
not require a divorce decree to provide a former spouse with a survivor
beneficiary interest. As this court has previously held, "unless specifically
set forth in the divorce decree, an allocation of a community property
interest in the employee spouse's pension plan does not also entitle the
nonemployee spouse to survivor benefits." Henson v. Henson,
, 334 P.3d at 937 (noting
that "...the only pension benefit the nonemployee spouse is guaranteed to
receive is his or her community property interest in the unmodified service
retirement allowance calculated pursuant to NRS 286.551 and payable
'Pursuant to NRAP 34(f)(1), we have determined that oral argument
is not warranted in this appeal.
2I-2 ‘3VŠ
through the life of the employee spouse."). Thus, we affirm the district
court's decision denying appellant's request for a survivor benefit as
substantial evidence supports the division of respondent's PERS benefit.
See Kilgore v. Kilgore,
(2019)
(reciting the well-established rule that this court reviews factual findings
deferentially, but conclusions of law de novo). The district court was not
required to make specific findings where its final division effectuated an
equal distribution, pursuant to NRS 125.150(1)(b).
Next, appellant assigns error to the district court's failure to
address her requests for an equal division of respondenes vacation, sick,
and holiday pay. Respondent answers that appellant failed to raise the
issue below as a mistakenly omitted asset under NRS 125.150(3). Although
appellant requested an equal share in her pretrial memorandum and at
trial, the divorce decree lacked specific findings or a decision regarding
respondent's vacation, sick, and holiday pay. Because respondent's leave
accrued during the marriage, the district court was required to distribute
the community property equally unless it found a compelling reason not to
and provided its reasoning in writing. See NRS 125.150(1)(b); Kilgore, 135
Nev. at 366,
449 P.3d at 850
(holding that "vacation and sick pay earned
and accrued during a marriage are community property and subject to equal
division under NRS 125.150(1)(b)). Accordingly, we reverse and remand
this matter to the district court for further proceedings to adjudicate
appellant's requests regarding respondenes accrued vacation, sick, and
holiday pay as a community property asset under established law. In light
of the foregoing, we
2
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED IN
PART AND REVERSED IN PART AND REMAND for proceedings
consistent with this order.
Cadish
CelK , J.
, J. J.
Pickering Herndon
cc: Hon. Lisa M. Brown, District Judge, Family Court Division
Ara H. Shirinian, Settlement Judge
The Abrams & Mayo Law Firm
Kelleher & Kelleher, LLC
Mario D. Valencia
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) l947A 4471PD
