Morris v. Morris (Child Custody) ( 2015 )

 timeshare is limited to the school year, appellant receives an offset of
additional time during the summer, and testimony before the district
court indicated the older child's grades suffered because of the divorce,
appellant is not involved with the child's education, and homework was
not completed when the child was with appellant. Additionally, although
appellant made allegations about a potential sex offender having access to
the children, appellant presented no evidence establishing that the person
was a sex offender or that the district court's custody schedule would put
the children in contact with that person.
Appellant also challenges his $250-per-month child support
obligation, arguing that the district court incorrectly calculated his income
and failed to consider that respondent was living rent-free. The district
court found appellant's testimony about his income not credible and based
the child support amount on what it found to be appellant's actual income.
This court will not reweigh conflicting evidence or assess witness
credibility, Ellis, 123 Nev. at 152, 161 P.3d at 244, and here, substantial
evidence supports the district court's finding regarding appellant's income,
see id. at 149, 161 P.3d at 242. As to appellant's argument that
respondent's rent-free residence should have been considered when
calculating child support, living rent-free does not affect gross income and
is thus irrelevant under the statutory formula for calculating child
support. See NRS 125B.070 (defining gross income and providing
presumptive child support amounts based on gross income).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
Finally, appellant argues that the district court abused its
discretion when it granted respondent exclusive possession of the marital
home and ordered her to make her best efforts to remove appellant from
the mortgage. We conclude that the district court order is unclear as to
the parties' respective interests in the marital home and associated
mortgage obligation, and we remand for clarification of the divorce decree
as to this issue. We affirm the divorce decree in all other respects.
It is so ORDERED.
J.
Piek.(24 clip ,
J.
Pickering
cc: Hon. Vincent Ochoa, District Judge
Lansford W. Levitt, Settlement Judge
Prokopius & Beasley
Black & LoBello
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) (947A e