Schmidt v. Schmidt

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: June 14, 2013
• Docket: 58450
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation" (internal quotations omitted)). Further, to the extent that the transcript attached to the divorce decree was inconsistent with the unambiguous terms of the decree, the district court properly declined to consider the transcript to interpret the provision. 1 See Kishner v. Kishner, 93 Nev. 220, 225, 562 P.2d 493, 496 (1977) (noting that the district court may not construe a decree that is not ambiguous). Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

J.

ett.AA. Parraguirre

C641. J. Cherry

cc: Hon. Charles J. Hoskin, District Judge, Family Court Division Lansford W. Levitt, Settlement Judge Mills & Mills Renee Schmidt Eighth District Court Clerk

'We decline to consider appellant's argument that the transcript was incorporated into the divorce decree pursuant to NRS 123.080, as appellant failed to raise that argument before the district court. See State Bd. of Equalization v. Barta, 124 Nev. 612, 621, 188 P.3d 1092, 1098 (2008) (providing that "this court generally will not consider arguments that a party raises for the first time on appeal").

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A

:WitZMICIENASS MIMMIRM