TROUT VS. TROUT (FAMILY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

• -A district court's decision regarding an award of attorney fees or costs is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
• -Arguments not raised on appeal are deemed forfeited; where fees were awarded under NRS 125B.140 and the appellant challenges only fees under NRS 18.010(2)(b), the court does not consider the unraised challenge to the actual statutory basis.
• -Express findings on the Brunzell factors are preferred but not required where the record demonstrates the court considered those factors and the award is supported by substantial evidence.
• -When awarding attorney fees in a family law case, a court must also consider the disparity in income under Wright v. Osburn.
• -It is the appellant's burden to provide an adequate appellate record, and when an appellant fails to include necessary documentation, the reviewing court presumes the missing portions support the district court's decision.

Practitioner summary

The Court of Appeals reviewed the award of attorney fees and costs for abuse of discretion, citing LVMPD v. Blackjack Bonding, 131 Nev. 80, 89, 343 P.3d 608, 614 (2015).

The court set out the governing framework for attorney fee awards. A district court must consider the four factors from Brunzell v. Golden Gate National Bank, 85 Nev. 345, 349, 455 P.2d 31, 33 (1969) — the quality of the advocate, the character of the work needed to be done, the work performed, and the result. Express findings on the Brunzell factors are preferred but not required where the record demonstrates the court considered those factors and the award is supported by substantial evidence, per Logan v. Abe, 131 Nev. 260, 266, 350 P.3d 1139, 1143 (2015). In family law cases, the court must also consider the disparity in income under Wright v. Osburn, 114 Nev. 1367, 1370, 970 P.2d 1071, 1073 (1998), as recognized in Miller v. Wilfong, 121 Nev. 619, 623-24, 119 P.3d 727, 730 (2005). The opinion also noted, by footnote, that absent a finding of undue hardship, NRS 125B.140(2)(c)(2) mandates an award of attorney fees if the court finds that child support arrearages are owed following a hearing on arrearages.

Applying this framework, the court observed that the district court awarded fees under NRS 125B.140, not NRS 18.010(2)(b). Because Brandon presented no argument concerning the propriety of fees awarded under NRS 125B.140, the court treated his NRS 18.010(2)(b) arguments as unaddressable and deemed any challenge under NRS 125B.140 forfeited, citing Palmieri v. Clark County, 131 Nev. 1028, 1033 n.2, 367 P.3d 442, 446 n.2 (Ct. App. 2015). The court expressly declined to address whether NRS 125B.140 was a proper basis for awarding fees under these circumstances.

The court further found that the district court's order demonstrated consideration of the Brunzell factors with sufficient findings, and that the district court considered the disparity in income and found Brandon in a superior position to pay the fees and costs.

On the reasonableness and documentation challenges, the court applied the rule that an appellant bears the burden to provide an adequate appellate record, and that when necessary documentation is omitted, the reviewing court presumes the missing portions support the district court's decision, citing Cuzze v. Univ. & Cmty. Coll. Sys. of Nev., 123 Nev. 598, 603, 172 P.3d 131, 135 (2007). Because Brandon's appendix did not contain Annastacia's memorandum of attorney fees and costs, the attached billing statements, or his opposition, the court presumed the missing materials supported both the fee award and the cost award. The court concluded Brandon failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion and affirmed.

In plain language

Brandon and Annastacia Trout divorced and, in July 2021, agreed to share joint legal and joint physical custody of their two children. As part of that agreement, Brandon would pay $1,700 per month in child support, and the parties agreed to revisit the support arrangement in May 2024.

In September 2024, Annastacia asked the court to modify child support, arguing that Brandon's income had gone up. She also requested attorney fees. Brandon opposed the request and asked for his own attorney fees under a different statute (NRS 18.010).

After an evidentiary hearing (a hearing where the judge reviews evidence and testimony), the district court found in June 2025 that Brandon's income had increased by more than 20 percent. The court raised his child support obligation to $1,981 per month, made that increase retroactive to September 2024, and had the parties calculate the back amounts owed (arrears). The court denied Brandon's request for fees but allowed Annastacia, who had prevailed, to submit a request for her attorney fees and costs. The court ultimately awarded her $13,689 in attorney fees under NRS 125B.140 and $10.50 in costs, which it found reasonable and necessary.

Brandon appealed, arguing that Annastacia should not receive fees, that the amount was unreasonable, that there was no evidence supporting the hourly rates, and that she did not document that costs were actually incurred.

The Court of Appeals affirmed (upheld) the district court. The court explained two main reasons. First, the fees were awarded under NRS 125B.140, not under NRS 18.010(2)(b), yet Brandon's arguments focused on NRS 18.010(2)(b) and did not challenge the fees under NRS 125B.140 — so those unmade arguments were treated as forfeited. Second, Brandon did not include in his appellate record the documents central to his complaints — Annastacia's fee memorandum, the billing statements, and his own opposition. Because it is the appealing party's job to provide a complete record, and because those documents were missing, the court presumed the missing materials supported the district court's decision. For these reasons, the court concluded Brandon had not shown the district court abused its discretion.

Counsel of record

Counsel is shown when the opinion or the court's docket names it.