Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

97 Nev. 11

Applebaum v. Applebaum

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided January 13, 1981

Nevada Supreme Court · decided 1981-01-13

Relies on Applebaum v. Applebaum · Boulet v. City of Las Vegas

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1981-01-13

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently December 2010

7 state decisions

301981199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1OPINION

Per Curiam:

¶2This appeal is taken from an order reducing arrearages to judgment entered by the district court on February 13, 1978.1 Appellant contends that the granting of the order was error because the total amount he was ordered to pay was not at that time due and owing.

¶3The Applebaums were divorced in 1972, remarried in 1973 and divorced again in 1976. In 1977, we decided Applebaum v. Applebaum, 93 Nev. 382, 566 P.2d 85. There we affirmed the trial court’s finding that the parties’ 1972 property settlement agreement was valid. We also affirmed the trial court’s finding that Geraldine had excused Steven from the payment of sums due under the 1972 agreement during the second marriage. In the 1976 decree the trial court ordered Steven to pay Geraldine the $9,000 due under the 1972 agreement “forthwith”.

¶4*12Appellant’s counsel, at oral argument, admitted that the entire amount awarded in the 1978 judgment is now due and owing to the respondent.2 For this reason, we need not address the merits of this appeal. This court will not render advisory opinions on moot or abstract questions. Decisions may be rendered only where actual controversies exist. Nev. Const, art. 6 § 4; Boulet v. City of Las Vegas, 96 Nev. 611, 614 P.2d 8 (1980). The judgment for arrearages and interest on those arrearages to February 13, 1978, is affirmed.

¶5The part of the order reducing arrearages to judgment for amounts not due and owing as of February 13, 1978, is reversed and remanded. Upon remand, the district court shall recompute and award interest pursuant to the payment schedule provided for in the 1972 agreement3 on the balance owing to respondent but unpaid.

Gunderson, C. J., and Manoukian, Batjer, and Mow-bray, JJ., and Young, D. J.,4 concur.

¶6The order required Steven (appellant) to pay $9,000, together with interest thereon, with attorney fees of $500.

¶7Despite this admission, the appellant is asking this court to permit him to return to the periodic payment schedule provided for in the 1972 agreement. Since the entire amount is now due and owing, this claim is without merit.

¶8The 1972 agreement provided for payments of $1,000 due on the 15th day of every fourth month, commencing on January 15 (of each year).

/97/nev/11 · .json · Public domain