Case ID: nev_88/html/0588-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam:\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

RICHARD E. HEINLE, Appellant, v. LYANN AILEEN HEINLE, Respondent.
    No. 6861
    November 16, 1972
    502 P.2d 986
    
      
      Fry and Fry, of Reno, for Appellant.
    
      Samuel B. Francovich, of Reno, for Respondent.
   OPINION

Per Curiam:

In the circumstances disclosed by the record, we believe the trial court erred neither in its disposition of the parties’ community property, NRS 125.150(1), nor in ordering appellant to pay respondent $75 per month for the support of the parties’ minor daughter, NRS 125.140(2). Recounting those circumstances, which in combination are unique, would create no useful precedent.

Affirmed.