英语翻译Rodriguez presented the Nevada Supreme Court with an appeal from the trial court's decision to deny an award of alimony based on marital misconduct.Antonio Rodriguez filed for divorce from his wife of twenty-one years in September 1994.Wh

英语翻译Rodriguez presented the Nevada Supreme Court with an appeal from the trial court's decision to deny an award of alimony based on marital misconduct.Antonio Rodriguez filed for divorce from his wife of twenty-one years in September 1994.Wh
英语翻译
Rodriguez presented the Nevada Supreme Court with an appeal from the trial court's decision to deny an award of alimony based on marital misconduct.Antonio Rodriguez filed for divorce from his wife of twenty-one years in September 1994.When the trial began in January 1996,Antonio earned a salary of $ 75,000.00 per year,while his wife Glenda earned $ 14,000.00.Despite the duration of the marriage,and the disparity in income,the trial court refused Glenda's request for maintenance because she engaged in an extramarital affair,and "initiated the parties' separation by leaving the family to pursue the extra-marital relationship."
The trial court based its decision on the Nevada Supreme Court's ruling in Heim v.Heim,n20 where the court's dictum suggested that marital misconduct may be considered in determining a maintenance award.When Heim was decided,the Nevada dissolution statute instructed that a court might award alimony and community property,"having regard to the respective merits of the parties."The Heim court construed this to mean that courts could divide property and award alimony in a just and equitable manner,and suggested that "when examining the 'merits' of the parties the courts might look at the parties' good actions or good behavior or lack thereof in determining what either husband or wife justly deserves."
The trial court's reliance on Heim caused it to ignore the amendments made to section 125.150 of the Nevada Revised Statutes in 1993.The Nevada legislature,recognizing the conflict between the concept of no-fault divorce,and the consideration of fault in alimony awards and property division,deleted the phrase "having regard to the respective merits of the parties" from the statute.In 1997,the Nevada Supreme Court reviewed the statute with regard to property division,concluding that the 1993 amendment reflected the Nevada legislature's desire to safeguard the concept of no-fault divorce.Consequently,marital misconduct is not considered in the disposition of community property.The court carved out an exception,however,to allow consideration of the economic consequences associated with the misconduct.
The Rodriguez case was the Nevada Supreme Court's first opportunity to review the amended statute with respect to alimony awards.n28 The court reiterated the legislative intent behind the 1993 amendment,stating that the questionable language was omitted in response to judicial decisions suggesting that fault might be a determining factor in alimony and property distribution.n29 Because the legislature specified that there are different considerations for property distribution and alimony,the court chose not to apply the economic consequence exception to maintenance awards.Instead,the court referred to Buchanan v.Buchanan

英语翻译Rodriguez presented the Nevada Supreme Court with an appeal from the trial court's decision to deny an award of alimony based on marital misconduct.Antonio Rodriguez filed for divorce from his wife of twenty-one years in September 1994.Wh
罗德里格斯介绍了内华达州最高法院的上诉审判法庭的决定,否认一奖赡养费的基础上,婚姻的不当行为.安东尼奥罗德里格斯诉请离婚,由他的妻子21年在1994年9月.当审判开始于1996年1月,安东尼奥获得的薪酬七万五点零零美元每年,他的妻子则格伦达赚取的美元14000.00.despite婚姻存续期间,以及收入差距,审判法院拒绝格兰达的要求,以便进行维修,因为她从事在一外遇,和“发起各方分离离开家庭追求婚外情的关系” .
审判法庭基于其决定对内华达州最高法院的裁决在海姆五海姆,n20所在法院的判词中建议,婚姻的不当行为可被视为在确定维修award.when海姆决定,内华达州解散规约的指示,法院可能奖赡养费和社区财产,“考虑到各自的优点,各方”赫伊姆法院的诠释,这意味着法院可以鸿沟财产和赡养费,奖励在一个公正和公平的方式,并建议：“当研究'优点'有关各方法院看起来可能会在有关各方的良好行为或良好的行为,或缺乏在确定哪些不是丈夫或妻子,公正,值得“ .
审判法庭的依赖海姆造成的,它不理会作出修订,第125.150的内华达州修订的章程在1993年.内华达州的立法机关,认识之间的冲突的概念,无过失离婚,并审议了故障,在赡养费的奖项和财产记名表决,删除“考虑到各自的优点,各方”从statute.in 1997年,内华达州最高法院审查规约关于财产记名表决,得出结论认为,1993年修订,反映了内华达州立法机关的愿望,维护的概念,无过失离婚.因此,婚姻的不当行为是没有考虑到在处置社会财产.法院刻了一个例外,不过,为了让审议的经济后果与行为失当.
该罗德里格斯案件是内华达州最高法院的第一次有机会检讨,修订章程与尊重,赡养费的奖项.n28法院重申,立法原意的背后1993年的修正案,指出有问题的语言是遗漏了回应司法判决表明故障可能是决定性的因素,在赡养费和财产分配.n29 ,因为立法机关指定有不同的考虑,为财产分配及赡养费,法院选择不适用的经济后果的例外维修奖项.相反,所指的法院布坎南诉布坎南