Cathy Miller Hardy - Page 14

                                       - 14 -                                         
               We need not, and do not decide, whether, under Nevada law,             
          an oral agreement between spouses to keep their respective                  
          property separate is effective against respondent.  That is                 
          because, regardless how that issue is resolved under Nevada law,            
          we nonetheless find on the record before us that petitioner has             
          not established by clear and convincing evidence, as required by            
          that law, Pryor v. Pryor, 103 Nev. at 150, 734 P.2d at 719, that            
          during the years at issue she and Mr. Hardy did, in fact, have an           
          oral agreement to keep their respective property separate.15  In            
          this regard, we find it significant that the record contains no             
          evidence relating to the specific terms of the alleged oral                 
          agreement between petitioner and Mr. Hardy.  It is also sig-                
          nificant that:  (1) Mr. Hardy testified at a deposition in the              

          15  Petitioner attempted to show that during the years at issue             
          she and Mr. Hardy had an oral agreement to keep their respective            
          property separate through her own testimony and the testimony of            
          the following witnesses:  (1) Her husband, Mr. Hardy, (2) her               
          daughter, Lorena Chessmore, (3) her cousin, Oscar Johnny, and               
          (4) Mr. Hardy's son, Ray Donald Hardy.  We conclude that peti-              
          tioner's attempt failed.  We did not find the testimony of either           
          petitioner or Mr. Hardy to be credible.  Indeed, their respective           
          testimony at the trial in this case was inconsistent in certain             
          material respects with their respective testimony at depositions            
          taken in connection with a Federal tax proceeding in the U.S.               
          District Court for the District of Nevada (District Court pro-              
          ceeding).  We found the testimony of petitioner's daughter and              
          cousin and Mr. Hardy's son to be at times general, vague, and               
          conclusory, and we did not find their testimony particularly                
          helpful to petitioner's position that Mr. Hardy and she had an              
          oral agreement during the years at issue to keep their respective           
          property separate.  Indeed, none of them testified that petition-           
          er and Mr. Hardy had such an agreement during those (or any                 
          other) years.                                                               






Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011