Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 125 - DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125.040 (2026)

Orders for support and cost of suit during pendency of action

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 125.040  Orders for support and cost of suit during pendency of action.

      1.  In any suit for divorce the court may, in its discretion, upon application by either party and notice to the other party, require either party to pay moneys necessary to assist the other party in accomplishing one or more of the following:

      (a) To provide temporary maintenance for the other party;

      (b) To provide temporary support for children of the parties; or

      (c) To enable the other party to carry on or defend such suit.

      2.  The court may make any order affecting property of the parties, or either of them, which it may deem necessary or desirable to accomplish the purposes of this section. Such orders shall be made by the court only after taking into consideration the financial situation of each of the parties.

      3.  The court may make orders pursuant to this section concurrently with orders pursuant to NRS 125C.0055.

      [Part 27:33:1861; A 1865, 99; 1915, 324; 1939, 18; 1931 NCL § 9465]—(NRS A 1963, 8; 1975, 246; 2015, 2581)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1958–2022 · leading case: Martin v. Martin, 2022 NV 78 (Nev. 2022).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Martin v. Martin, 2022 NV 78 (Nev. 2022). · cites it 10× “SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) I947A 40SID 2 that a court does not abuse its discretion by awarding pendente lite attorney fees under NRS 125.040 without analyzing the Brunzell2 factors because those factors consider the quality of work already performed, in contrast to an NRS 125.”
Sargeant v. Sargeant, 495 P.2d 618 (Nev. 1972). · cites it 6× “The term "necessitous circumstances" does not appear in Nevada's suit money statute, NRS 125.040, [1] nevertheless, *621 this court for many years has written in that requirement.”
Love v. Love, 959 P.2d 523 (Nev. 1998). · cites it 2× “The district court's order and judgment did not state the basis for its award of attorney fees and costs.”
Day v. Day, 417 P.2d 914 (Nev. 1966). · cites it 6× “We feel the same authority cited above governs the payments made by Fairfield directly to his son and for which he now claims credit against arrearages owed to Frances. As to the attorney's fee awarded Frances pursuant to NRS 125.”
Korbel v. Korbel, 696 P.2d 993 (Nev. 1985). · cites it 4× “150(3) provides: “Whether or not application for suit money has been made under the provisions of NRS 125.040, the court may award a reasonable attorney’s fee to either party to an action for divorce if those fees are in issue under the pleadings.”
Applebaum v. Applebaum, 566 P.2d 85 (Nev. 1977). “or unable to provide for himself, in a specified principal sum or as specified periodic payments, and shall make such disposition of the community property of the parties, as appears just and equitable, having regard to the respective merits of the parties and to the condition…”
Griffith Vs. Gonzales-alpizar, 2016 NV 38 (Nev. 2016). · cites it 33× “We hold that a district court does have jurisdiction to award attorney fees pendente lite for the costs of an appeal pursuant to NRS 125.040. Furthermore, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding such fees in this case.”
Leeming v. Leeming, 490 P.2d 342 (Nev. 1971). “140(2), which provides: “In actions for divorce the court may, during the pendency of the action, or at the final hearing or at any time thereafter during the minority of any of the children of the marriage, make such order for the custody, care, education, maintenance and…”
Braddock v. Braddock, 542 P.2d 1060 (Nev. 1975). “150(2): “Whether or not application for suit money has been made under the provisions of NRS 125.040, the court may award a reasonable attorney’s fee to either party to an action for divorce if attorneys’ fees are in issue under the pleadings.”
Fox v. Fox, 401 P.2d 53 (Nev. 1965). “Whether or not application for suit money has been made under the provisions of NRS 125.040, the court may award a reasonable attorney’s fee to either party to an action for divorce if attorneys’ fees are in issue under the pleadings.”
Woodruff v. Woodruff, 573 P.2d 206 (Nev. 1978). “150(1) provides: “In granting a divorce, the court may award such alimony to the wife, or to the husband if he is disabled or unable to provide for himself, in a- specified principal sum or as specified periodic payments, and shall make such disposition of the community property…”
Cranmer v. Cranmer, 379 P.2d 474 (Nev. 1963). · cites it 2× “2d 729, 730 , we said: “As to the judgment for counsel fees, appellant contends that the court had no power to render such judgment; that its only power with respect to counsel fees lies in the area of suit money under NRS 125.040 to require the husband ‘to pay such sums as may…”
Show all 22 citing cases →
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125.040(1) — 2 cases
Korbel v. Korbel, 696 P.2d 993 (Nev. 1985). “150(3) provides: “Whether or not application for suit money has been made under the provisions of NRS 125.040, the court may award a reasonable attorney’s fee to either party to an action for divorce if those fees are in issue under the pleadings.”
Carr-Bricken v. First Interstate Bank, 779 P.2d 967 (Nev. 1989).
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125.040(1)(c) — 3 cases
Martin v. Martin, 2022 NV 78 (Nev. 2022). “SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) I947A 40SID 2 that a court does not abuse its discretion by awarding pendente lite attorney fees under NRS 125.040 without analyzing the Brunzell2 factors because those factors consider the quality of work already performed, in contrast to an NRS 125.”
Griffith Vs. Gonzales-alpizar, 2016 NV 38 (Nev. 2016). “We hold that a district court does have jurisdiction to award attorney fees pendente lite for the costs of an appeal pursuant to NRS 125.040. Furthermore, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding such fees in this case.”
Griffith Vs. Gonzales-alpizar, 2016 NV 38 (Nev. 2016).
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125.040(2) — 1 case
Martin v. Martin, 2022 NV 78 (Nev. 2022). “SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) I947A 40SID 2 that a court does not abuse its discretion by awarding pendente lite attorney fees under NRS 125.040 without analyzing the Brunzell2 factors because those factors consider the quality of work already performed, in contrast to an NRS 125.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.