Hopper v. Hopper

Nevada Supreme Court

Hopper v. Hopper

392 P.2d 629, 80 Nev. 302, 1964 Nev. LEXIS 162

CourtNevada Supreme Court

DecidedJune 3, 1964

Docket4717

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 392 P.2d 629 (Hopper v. Hopper) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hopper v. Hopper, 392 P.2d 629, 80 Nev. 302, 1964 Nev. LEXIS 162 (Neb. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

By the Court,

Thompson, J.:

In this case the husband’s separate property, a home, was improved by the construction of a swimming pool paid for by the separate funds of the wife. In a divorce action the trial court, in dividing property, failed to reimburse the wife for the cost of the swimming pool (about $3,000). That court reasoned that the law presumed a gift from the wife to the husband of the swimming pool cost, which presumption was not rebutted. The wife appeals.

In Lombardi v. Lombardi, 44 Nev. 314, 195 P. 93, *303 the husband expended his separate funds to improve his wife’s separate real property. The court held that, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, “the title to the improvements follows the land.” (Cf. Kraemer v. Kraemer, 76 Nev. 265, 352 P.2d 253, where the court cited the Lombardi case, but found a specific agreement to consider the advances by the husband to the wife as loans rather than gifts.) Here the trial court apparently found no reason to consider the money paid by the wife for the swimming pool as a loan and, therefore, applied the rule of law announced in Lombardi. It was at liberty to do so, for some of the evidence is compatible with the legal concept of a gift from the wife to the husband, vesting title to the swimming pool in him.

Affirmed.

Badt, C. J., and McNamee, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

By the Court,

Thompson, J.:

In this case the husband’s separate property, a home, was improved by the construction of a swimming pool paid for by the separate funds of the wife. In a divorce action the trial court, in dividing property, failed to reimburse the wife for the cost of the swimming pool (about $3,000). That court reasoned that the law presumed a gift from the wife to the husband of the swimming pool cost, which presumption was not rebutted. The wife appeals.

In Lombardi v. Lombardi, 44 Nev. 314, 195 P. 93, *303 the husband expended his separate funds to improve his wife’s separate real property. The court held that, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, “the title to the improvements follows the land.” (Cf. Kraemer v. Kraemer, 76 Nev. 265, 352 P.2d 253, where the court cited the Lombardi case, but found a specific agreement to consider the advances by the husband to the wife as loans rather than gifts.) Here the trial court apparently found no reason to consider the money paid by the wife for the swimming pool as a loan and, therefore, applied the rule of law announced in Lombardi. It was at liberty to do so, for some of the evidence is compatible with the legal concept of a gift from the wife to the husband, vesting title to the swimming pool in him.

Affirmed.

Badt, C. J., and McNamee, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

392 P.2d 629, 80 Nev. 302, 1964 Nev. LEXIS 162, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hopper-v-hopper-nev-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack