Gilman v. Gilman
Nevada Supreme Court
956 P.2d 761 (1998)
- Written by Haley Gintis, JD
Facts
Richard S. Gilman (plaintiff) obtained a divorce decree against Marjorie Gilman (defendant). The decree provided that Richard’s spousal-support obligation would be reconsidered if Marjorie cohabitated with another male who significantly contributed to her support. Following the divorce, Marjorie bought a house and began cohabitating with her boyfriend. Marjorie used the support obligations to provide for all the household and living expenses. Valerie Callahan (plaintiff) obtained a divorce decree against Ken Callahan (defendant). The decree included a spousal-support order but no cohabitation provision. Following the divorce, Valerie began cohabitating with her boyfriend, Chuck Maraden. Valerie and Chuck split living and household expenses. Chuck loaned Valerie money, which Valerie was required to repay. In response to their spouses cohabitating, Richard and Ken each moved for the district court to terminate his spousal-support obligation. Richard and Ken each claimed that cohabitation constituted a changed circumstance, which gave the court a basis for modifying the obligation. Additionally, Richard argued that his support obligation should be terminated because Marjorie used the payments to support her boyfriend. The district court denied both motions. The matters were appealed. The Nevada Supreme Court reviewed the cases.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Shearing, J.)
Concurrence/Dissent (Springer, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 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.