This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

H and W were married in December 1992. Both worked for Clark County-H as a marshal and W as a teacher-and received retirement benefits through the Nevada Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS). They divorced in March 2013, and the divorce decree provided for the division of each party's PERS benefits in accordance with applicable caselaw. The decree did not address vacation or sick pay earned and accrued during the marriage. In March 2015, W moved the district court to compel H to begin paying her share of his PERS benefits because he had become eligible for retirement. She also requested a one-half interest in H's vacation and sick pay earned and accrued during their marriage. The court temporarily denied the request for payment because H had been terminated from his position as a marshal and earned no other income. The court entered a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) dividing H's PERS benefits and a QDRO dividing W's PERS benefits. W had the right to receive a portion of the benefits payable to a plan Participant 'at the first possible date.' H was reinstated as a marshal in January 2016. The district court ordered him to start paying $1,200 per month toward W's share of his PERS benefits. H argued that he planned to work until his PERS account reached full maturity and should not be obligated to pay until he retires. The district court concluded that because H was eligible to retire in 2011, W was entitled to her share of Richard's PERS benefits even though he had not yet retired. It acknowledged, that PERS would not pay W anything until H retired. It calculated the amount H owed retroactive to the date of W's motion in March 2015, and reduced that sum to judgment, collectible by any lawful means. It ordered H to pay $350 per month toward the judgment, instead of the $2,455 per month it calculated W would have received from PERS had H retired. H was ordered to pay W for vacation and sick pay that he earned during their marriage. H and W appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.