Alimony in Nevada.
Whether the state sets a formula or leaves it to the judge, what the court has to weigh, how long it runs, and what brings it to an end.
See a different stateNevada
s. 125.150(1)(a): the court 'may award such alimony to either spouse, in a specified principal sum or as specified periodic payments, as appears just and equitable'.
Use the state’s own words
Nevada calls it alimony. NRS 125.150 is captioned 'Alimony, adjudication of property rights and explanation of disposition of pension or retirement benefits; award of attorney's fee; postjudgment motion; subsequent modification by court.' The statute uses 'alimony' throughout and does not use 'maintenance' or 'spousal support' for the post-divorce award. 'Support and maintenance' appears in NRS 125.190, a separate cause of action for permanent support and maintenance by a spouse, and in NRS 125.010(1), which provides that a decree granted on the ground of insanity 'shall not relieve the successful party from contributing to the support and maintenance of the defendant'.. Using the state’s own term matters when you are searching for forms or reading an order — the words are not interchangeable across state lines, and some of them mean different things in different places.
What the law actually says
The power the court has
What the judge has to weigh
How long it lasts
Duration
None. NRS 125.150 sets no bracket, presumption, cap or schedule tied to the length of the marriage. The duration of the marriage is factor (d) in the subd. 9 list and nothing more. Subd. 1(a) authorizes an award 'in a specified principal sum or as specified periodic payments' without stating any limit on the number or the term of those payments. The only durational discipline in the section is directed at rehabilitative alimony: NRS 125.150(11)(a) provides that where alimony is awarded for training or education, 'The court, in its order, shall provide for the time within which the spouse who is the recipient of the alimony must commence the training or education relating to a job, career or profession.' That fixes a start, not an end. Source: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/nrs-125.html
Does behavior matter?
Marital misconduct
Not established as a statutory input, and the statute appears to be silent. The words 'misconduct', 'adultery' and 'fault' do not appear anywhere in NRS chapter 125 as retrieved from the Legislature's own page (the only matches for the letters 'fault' are the word 'default' in the enforcement provisions). NRS 125.150(9) does not list conduct among the eleven factors, and its opening words, 'In addition to any other factors the court considers relevant', neither authorize nor forbid it. Nevada's grounds are no-fault on their face. NRS 125.010, verbatim: 'Divorce from the bonds of matrimony may be obtained for any of the following causes: 1. Insanity existing for 2 years prior to the commencement of the action. … 2. When the spouses have lived separate and apart for 1 year without cohabitation the court may, in its discretion, grant an absolute decree of divorce at the suit of either party. 3. Incompatibility.' Whether a Nevada court may weigh marital fault in setting alimony is a question the statute does not answer, and no Nevada appellate decision was read from a primary source. Source: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/nrs-125.html
When it ends, and when it can change
What brings it to an end
NRS 125.150(6), verbatim: 'In the event of the death of either party or the subsequent remarriage of the spouse to whom specified periodic payments were to be made, all the payments required by the decree must cease, unless it was otherwise ordered by the court.' Two points on the face of the text. The trigger is mandatory, 'must cease', unless the court ordered otherwise. And it is confined to 'specified periodic payments'; an award made under subd. 1(a) 'in a specified principal sum' is not within the words of the subsection. There is no cohabitation provision in NRS 125.150. The word 'cohabitation' appears in chapter 125 only in NRS 125.010(2), where living apart 'without cohabitation' for one year is a ground for divorce. Source: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/nrs-125.html
Changing it later
NRS 125.150(8), verbatim: 'If a decree of divorce, or an agreement between the parties which was ratified, adopted or approved in a decree of divorce, provides for specified periodic payments of alimony, the decree or agreement is not subject to modification by the court as to accrued payments. Payments pursuant to a decree entered on or after July 1, 1975, which have not accrued at the time a motion for modification is filed may be modified upon a showing of changed circumstances, whether or not the court has expressly retained jurisdiction for the modification. In addition to any other factors the court considers relevant in determining whether to modify the order, the court shall consider whether the income of the spouse who is ordered to pay alimony, as indicated on the spouse's federal income tax return for the preceding calendar year, has been reduced to such a level that the spouse is financially unable to pay the amount of alimony the spouse has been ordered to pay.' The standard is bare 'changed circumstances'; the statute does not require that the change be substantial, continuing, unforeseeable or material. Jurisdiction to modify does not have to be reserved, which is the opposite of the Ohio rule. NRS 125.150(12) then supplies a bright line, verbatim: 'For the purposes of this section, a change of 20 percent or more in the gross monthly income of a spouse who is ordered to pay alimony shall be deemed to constitute changed circumstances requiring a review for modification of the payments of alimony. As used in this subsection, "gross monthly income" means the total amount of income received each month from any source of a person who is not self-employed or the gross income from any source of a self-employed person, after deduction of all legitimate business expenses, but without deduction for personal income taxes, contributions for retirement benefits, contributions to a pension or for any other personal expenses.' Read the verb precisely: a twenty percent change is deemed to constitute changed circumstances 'requiring a review for modification'. It compels a review, not a modification. Source: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/nrs-125.html
Worth knowing about Nevada
Three things. First, the twenty percent rule in NRS 125.150(12) is the only quantified figure anywhere in Nevada's alimony statute, and it is a modification trigger rather than an amount guideline. A page that says Nevada has 'a 20 percent rule' without saying what it triggers is describing something the statute does not say. Second, NRS 125.150(11)(c) lets the court award, on top of any other alimony, money earmarked for six specific purposes, including 'Subsidization of an employer's costs incurred in training the recipient', 'Testing of the recipient's skills relating to a job, career or profession', 'Evaluation of the recipient's abilities and goals', 'Guidance for the recipient in establishing a specific plan for training or education', 'Assisting the recipient to search for a job', and 'Payment of the costs of tuition, books and fees' for a high school equivalency, directly applicable college courses, or 'Courses of training in skills desirable for employment'. Paying an employer to train the recipient spouse is a remedy with no close analogue in the statutes read in this series. Third, the termination provision is drafted around periodic payments only. NRS 125.150(6) ends 'all the payments required by the decree' on death or remarriage, but its subject is 'the spouse to whom specified periodic payments were to be made'. An award made as 'a specified principal sum' under subd. 1(a) is outside those words.
The tax rule changed, and most guides still describe the old one
For a divorce or separation instrument executed after 31 December 2018, alimony is not deductible by the person paying it and not taxable to the person receiving it. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act repealed the provisions that made it otherwise. For an instrument executed on or before that date the old treatment continues — deductible to the payer, taxable to the recipient — unless it is later modified and the modification expressly adopts the new rule.
This is not a detail. Under the old rule a higher-rate payer could transfer income to a lower-rate recipient and the two of them shared the saving. That saving no longer exists, which changes what a given number is worth to each side. New Hampshire wrote the point into its own statute: its 23 per cent figure assumes non-deductibility, and reverts to 30 per cent if the federal treatment is ever restored.
Nevada has no state income tax, so the question of whether the state follows the federal rule does not arise. The federal treatment above is the entire picture. In four states that do levy an income tax — Arkansas, California, New Jersey and New York — it is not. The fifty-state table.
Authority: Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Pub. L. 115-97, section 11051, repealing Internal Revenue Code sections 71 and 215; see also IRS Publication 504.The other number that decides your budget
How Nevada calculates child support, and the overnight count that moves it more than income does.
And the question underneath it
What Nevada presumes about custody, and what the judge has to weigh.