- 15 -
District Court proceeding that petitioner and he did not enter
into an agreement to keep their respective property separate, and
(2) Mr. Hardy used at least a portion of the income that was paid
to him during the years at issue to pay at least some of the
living expenses (e.g., groceries, gasoline, utilities, mainte-
nance of the trailer house, and meals at restaurants).16
Based on the record before us, we conclude that petitioner
has not, as required by Nevada law, rebutted by clear and
convincing evidence the presumption under that law that the
income paid to and/or earned by Mr. Hardy during 1983, 1984, and
1985 is community income. On that record, we sustain respon-
dent's position that such income is community income.
Section 66(b) and (c)
Petitioner contends that, assuming arguendo that the income
paid to and/or earned by Mr. Hardy during the years at issue
constitutes community income, section 66(b) and (c) nonetheless
relieves her from including any portion of that income in her
gross income for those years. Respondent disagrees.
16 Petitioner claims that any transfer of property by Mr. Hardy
to her constituted a gift. Based on our review of the record in
this case, we are not persuaded that any such transfer consti-
tuted a gift. Rather, based on that review, we find that Mr.
Hardy's willingness to use the income that was paid to him during
the years at issue to pay at least some of the living expenses
supports respondent's position that that income is community in-
come. See Jensen v. Jensen, 104 Nev. 95, 98, 753 P.2d 342, 344
(1988).
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011