Legal Question in Family Law in Nevada

You don't say where the CASE is -- if you mean Nevada, courts generally could not care less either about the fact or the documentation of the fact, as the only issue of relevance is that of "waste" regarding any expenditures of community funds for the paramour. The relationship itself is not relevant to property, or alimony consideration, as this case pretty wells sums up:

Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, 116 Nev. 993, 13 P.3d 415 (2000)

Appeal from a divorce decree denying alimony and establishing child support. The husband made approximately $75,000 per year and the wife made approximately $14,000 per year. Even though it was a 22 year marriage, the wife was denied alimony due to her marital misconduct of having an extramarital affair.

The Court held that the district court (Marren) erred in how it considered fault in deciding whether or not to award alimony, labeling as "unfortunate dictum" the fault language set out in Heim v. Heim, 104 Nev. 605, 763 P.2d 678 (1988). The Court in interpreting the legislative history of Nevada�s alimony statute and the plain language of the statute concluded that at least as of the 1993 amendments to the alimony statute, fault can only be addressed in an alimony award when there is some quantifiable financial impact from the wrongdoing in question. While the legislative direction is still to provide such alimony as is "just and equitable," the deletion of the phrase "having regard to the respective merits of the parties" indicated that alimony is "no fault" in Nevada and expressly held that misconduct or fault may not be considered when considering an award of alimony.

Immediately thereafter, however, the Court claimed that consideration of fault was "unnecessary" given the factors set out in Buchanan v. Buchanan, 90 Nev. 209, 523 P.2d 1 (1974), under which the Court explained that "repetitive acts of physical or mental abuse" by one spouse "against the other, causing a condition in the injured spouse which generates expense or affects that person's ability to work," allows consideration of the resulting condition "in two ways: first, as a compelling reason to make an unequal distribution of property or second, without considering evidence of fault or misconduct, the court in deciding alimony will, per Buchanan, take that spouse's physical and mental condition into account when examining his or her financial condition, health and ability to work." The Court made clear that the factors listed in that case "are indeed guidelines and that other factors conceivably could from time to time be relevant as well," and then added "the existence of specialized education or training or level of marketable skills attained by each spouse" as "examples" of such factors "which come to mind," but noting that marital misconduct or fault are expressly to not be such factors, stating "Alimony is not a sword to level the wrongdoer. Alimony is not a prize to reward virtue. Alimony is financial support paid from one spouse to the other whenever justice and equity require it. Alimony may not be awarded or denied in an arbitrary or uncontrolled abuse of discretion." Of note was the Court's notation, but not discussion, of both the date of separation and the date of the divorce decree (here, separate by two years).

The Court reversed the denial of alimony, and remanded for a "just and equitable" award.