问题描述：
英语翻译
Rodriguez presented the Nevada Supreme Court with an appeal from the trial court's decision to deny an award of alimony based on marital misconduct.Antonio Rodriguez filed for divorce from his wife of twenty-one years in September 1994.When the trial began in January 1996,Antonio earned a salary of $ 75,000.00 per year,while his wife Glenda earned $ 14,000.00.Despite the duration of the marriage,and the disparity in income,the trial court refused Glenda's request for maintenance because she engaged in an extramarital affair,and "initiated the parties' separation by leaving the family to pursue the extra-marital relationship."
The trial court based its decision on the Nevada Supreme Court's ruling in Heim v.Heim,n20 where the court's dictum suggested that marital misconduct may be considered in determining a maintenance award.When Heim was decided,the Nevada dissolution statute instructed that a court might award alimony and community property,"having regard to the respective merits of the parties."The Heim court construed this to mean that courts could divide property and award alimony in a just and equitable manner,and suggested that "when examining the 'merits' of the parties the courts might look at the parties' good actions or good behavior or lack thereof in determining what either husband or wife justly deserves."
The trial court's reliance on Heim caused it to ignore the amendments made to section 125.150 of the Nevada Revised Statutes in 1993.The Nevada legislature,recognizing the conflict between the concept of no-fault divorce,and the consideration of fault in alimony awards and property division,deleted the phrase "having regard to the respective merits of the parties" from the statute.In 1997,the Nevada Supreme Court reviewed the statute with regard to property division,concluding that the 1993 amendment reflected the Nevada legislature's desire to safeguard the concept of no-fault divorce.Consequently,marital misconduct is not considered in the disposition of community property.The court carved out an exception,however,to allow consideration of the economic consequences associated with the misconduct.
The Rodriguez case was the Nevada Supreme Court's first opportunity to review the amended statute with respect to alimony awards.n28 The court reiterated the legislative intent behind the 1993 amendment,stating that the questionable language was omitted in response to judicial decisions suggesting that fault might be a determining factor in alimony and property distribution.n29 Because the legislature specified that there are different considerations for property distribution and alimony,the court chose not to apply the economic consequence exception to maintenance awards.Instead,the court referred to Buchanan v.Buchanan
Rodriguez presented the Nevada Supreme Court with an appeal from the trial court's decision to deny an award of alimony based on marital misconduct.Antonio Rodriguez filed for divorce from his wife of twenty-one years in September 1994.When the trial began in January 1996,Antonio earned a salary of $ 75,000.00 per year,while his wife Glenda earned $ 14,000.00.Despite the duration of the marriage,and the disparity in income,the trial court refused Glenda's request for maintenance because she engaged in an extramarital affair,and "initiated the parties' separation by leaving the family to pursue the extra-marital relationship."
The trial court based its decision on the Nevada Supreme Court's ruling in Heim v.Heim,n20 where the court's dictum suggested that marital misconduct may be considered in determining a maintenance award.When Heim was decided,the Nevada dissolution statute instructed that a court might award alimony and community property,"having regard to the respective merits of the parties."The Heim court construed this to mean that courts could divide property and award alimony in a just and equitable manner,and suggested that "when examining the 'merits' of the parties the courts might look at the parties' good actions or good behavior or lack thereof in determining what either husband or wife justly deserves."
The trial court's reliance on Heim caused it to ignore the amendments made to section 125.150 of the Nevada Revised Statutes in 1993.The Nevada legislature,recognizing the conflict between the concept of no-fault divorce,and the consideration of fault in alimony awards and property division,deleted the phrase "having regard to the respective merits of the parties" from the statute.In 1997,the Nevada Supreme Court reviewed the statute with regard to property division,concluding that the 1993 amendment reflected the Nevada legislature's desire to safeguard the concept of no-fault divorce.Consequently,marital misconduct is not considered in the disposition of community property.The court carved out an exception,however,to allow consideration of the economic consequences associated with the misconduct.
The Rodriguez case was the Nevada Supreme Court's first opportunity to review the amended statute with respect to alimony awards.n28 The court reiterated the legislative intent behind the 1993 amendment,stating that the questionable language was omitted in response to judicial decisions suggesting that fault might be a determining factor in alimony and property distribution.n29 Because the legislature specified that there are different considerations for property distribution and alimony,the court chose not to apply the economic consequence exception to maintenance awards.Instead,the court referred to Buchanan v.Buchanan
问题解答：
我来补答展开全文阅读