McNabney v. McNabney
Nevada Supreme Court
782 P.2d 1291 (1989)
- Written by Meredith Hamilton Alley, JD
Facts
Gail McNabney had substantial assets and income when she married Laurence McNabney, an attorney. During the marriage, Laurence earned a contingent legal fee that was payable as an annuity in gradually increasing installments until 2004. Gail and Laurence separated after two years of marriage and entered divorce proceedings. The trial court found that Gail did not require financial support from Laurence and further found that the annuity payment, about $3,700 per month at the time of trial, was Laurence’s main income. The value of the annuity at trial was about $713,000. Without setting forth the facts that supported its judgment, the trial court distributed 80 percent of the annuity to Laurence and 20 percent to Gail. Gail appealed, arguing that Nevada law required a substantially equal distribution of the annuity.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Springer, J.)
Dissent (Young, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
