Wheeler v. Upton-Wheeler
Nevada Supreme Court
113 Nev. 1185 (1997)
- Written by Haley Gintis, JD
Facts
In 1993, Ruthann Upton-Wheeler (Ruthann) (plaintiff) filed for divorce from John Wheeler (John) (defendant). Ruthann requested that an unequal division of community property be granted. At trial, the judge allowed Ruthann to admit into evidence pictures of injuries that she claimed to have sustained because of John’s abuse. The judge admitted the evidence for the purpose of deciding whether an unequal division of community property was warranted. The court found that John had abused Ruthann, and the abuse served as a compelling reason to grant the unequal distribution of community property. Additionally, the court awarded John physical custody of their 16-year-old daughter along with the family’s home. However, John was required to pay Ruthann fifty percent of the house’s net equity which amounted to $18,500. The court determined that John was required to pay Ruthann $10,000 and that Ruthann would receive a credit for the remaining amount by receiving a reduction in her child-support obligation. Ruthann was not required to pay any child support once the house payment was satisfied to accomplish the unequal-distribution objective. John filed to set aside the judgment and requested a new trial. The district court denied the motion. John appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
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.