conclude that the district court's findings as to the parties' respective 

incomes are supported by substantial evidence, see Shydler v. Shydler, 114 

Nev. 192, 196, 954 P.2d 37, 39 (1998), and that the district court did not 

abuse its discretion in calculating the child support and spousal support 

awards. See Wallace v. Wallace, 112 Nev. 1015, 1019, 922 P.2d 541, 543 

(1996) (holding that a district court's order concerning child support will 

not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion); Wolff v. Wolff, 112 Nev. 

1355, 1359, 929 P.2d 916, 918-19 (1996) (explaining that this court reviews 

the district court's spousal support order for an abuse of discretion). 

Appellant also contends that the district court abused its 

discretion in ordering him to pay respondent her share of his retirement 

benefits upon his retirement eligibility, if he chooses to continue working. 

Appellant argues that respondent's receipt of those benefits upon his 

retirement eligibility, but before his retirement, was not discussed at trial 

and was improperly added to the divorce decree. Appellant, however, fails 

to provide this court with the trial transcripts. He has an obligation to 

provide this court with an adequate appellant record. Thus, we assume 

the missing transcripts support the district court's decision. See 

Raishbrook v. Estate of Bayley, 90 Nev. 415, 416, 528 P.2d 1331, 1331 

(1974) (providing that this court assumes evidence omitted from the record 

supports the district court's judgment). Accordingly, we conclude that the 

district court did not abuse its discretion when devising the distribution of 

the parties' interests in appellant's retirement benefits earned during the 

marriage. See Gemma v. Gemma, 105 Nev. 458, 464, 778 P.2d 429, 432 

(1989) (providing that the nonemployee spouse can receive his or her share 

of the retirement benefits upon the employee spouse's eligibility to retire); 

see also Wolff, 112 Nev. at 1359, 929 P.2d at 918-19. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0 1947A e 
Parraguirre 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A e 

Saitta 

3 

Lastly, appellant challenges the portion of the divorce decree 

holding him in contempt and imposing sanctions for failing to pay ten 

mortgage payments on the marital home and ordering him to pay 

respondent the amount of the missed payments. Although appellant 

argues that contempt was improper because his failure to pay the 

mortgage payments benefitted both parties by qualifying them for a 

federal program that assists borrowers in reducing or eliminating a 

deficiency judgment related to a foreclosure or short sale, he does not 

argue that he was unaware of or unable to comply with the district court's 

order. As appellant violated the district court's order, we conclude that 

the district court properly held him in contempt and imposed sanctions. 

See Div. of Child and Family Serv. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 

Nev. 445, 454-55, 92 P.3d 1239, 1245-46 (2004) (explaining that a person 

can be held in contempt when he or she violates the obligation imposed by 

the court in a clear and unambiguous order). Further, the record indicates 

that appellant was originally ordered to make payments on the marital 

home, in which respondent and the children resided, as a form of 

temporary spousal support. Thus, we conclude that the district court did 

not abuse its discretion in ordering appellant to pay respondent the value 

of the missed mortgage payments as spousal support arrears. Wolff, 112 

Nev. at 1359, 929 P.2d at 918-19. 

For the reasons set forth above, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

J. 
cc: Hon. Bryce C. Duckworth, District Judge, Family Court Division 

Eric E. Ehlers 

Thomas J. Fitzpatrick 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 4 

(0) 1941A ce