CourtListener opinion 5133423

Evidence quotes

Clean opinion text

135 Nev., Advance Opinion 47
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

 RICHARD KILGORE, No. 73977
 Appellant/Cross-Respondent,
 vs. FILE
 ELENI KILGORE,
 Respondent/Cross-Appellant. OCT 0 3 2019

 BY
 ct
 Appeal and cross-appeal from orders resolving a motion to
 allocate omitted assets and modifying a divorce decree as it relates to PERS
 retirement benefits. Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Court Division,
 Clark County; Cheryl B. Moss, Judge.
 Affirmed.

 Law Office of Betsy Allen and Betsy Allen, Las Vegas,
 for Appellant/Cross-Respondent.

 Page Law Office and Fred Page, Las Vegas,
 for Respondent/Cross-Appellant.

 BEFORE PICKERING, PARRAGUIRRE and CADISH, JJ.

 OPINION

 By the Court, PARRAGUIRRE, J.:
 In this appeal, we review the district court's distribution of
 community property upon Richard Kilgore and Eleni Kilgore's divorce.
 Specifically, we consider whether the district court abused its discretion or
 otherwise erred when it concluded that Eleni was entitled to her community
SUPREME COURT
 OF
 NEVADA

(0) 1947A
 ICI -41-0 1
 property share of Richard's pension benefits even though Richard had not
 yet retired, reduced this amount to judgment, and ordered Richard to pay
 Eleni a monthly amount it deemed fair. We also consider whether the
 district court erred when it concluded that Richard's vacation and sick pay
 were omitted from the divorce decree and thereafter divided them equally
 between Richard and Eleni.
 We hold that a district court has significant discretion when
 determining whether to grant or deny a non-employee spouse's request for
 pension payments before the employee spouse has retired and conclude that
 the district court did not abuse that discretion here. Further, the district
 court did not err in considering the omitted assets and dividing them
 equally between the parties.
 FACTS
 Richard Kilgore and Eleni Kilgore were married in December
 1992. During their marriage, both worked for Clark County—Richard as a
 marshal and Eleni as a teacher—and received retirement benefits through
 the Nevada Public Employees Retirement System (PERS). They divorced
 in March 2013, and the divorce decree provided for the division of each
 party's PERS benefits in accordance with applicable caselaw.1 The decree
 did not address vacation or sick pay earned and accrued during the
 marriage.
 In March 2015, Eleni moved the district court to compel Richard
 to begin paying her share of his PERS benefits because he had become
 eligible for retirement. She also requested a one-half interest in Richard's

 iThe divorce decree also resolved child custody, visitation, and
 support issues involving Richard's and Eleni's three minor children, none of
 which are disputed in this appeal.
SUPREME CouRT
 OF
 NEVADA
 2
Co) 1947A carfil
 ).

 11111MIIEL
 vacation and sick pay earned and accrued during their marriage, noting
 that such assets were omitted from the divorce decree. In June 2015, the
 court temporarily denied Eleni's request for payment because Richard had
 been terminated from his position as a marshal and earned no other income.
 The court also deferred resolving the vacation and sick pay issue.
 Also in June 2015, the district court entered a qualified
 domestic relations order (QDRO) dividing Richard's PERS benefits and a
 QDRO dividing Eleni's PERS benefits. The QDRO dividing Richard's PERS
 benefits recognized Richard as the participant in PERS and Eleni as the
 alternate payee. It \assign[ed] to Eleni[ the right to receive a portion of