Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 125B - OBLIGATION OF SUPPORT
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125B.080 (2026)

Amount of payment: Determination

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 125B.080  Amount of payment: Determination.  A court of this State shall apply the guidelines established by the Administrator of the Division of Social Services of the Department of Human Services pursuant to NRS 425.620 to:

      1.  Determine the required support in any case involving the support of children; or

      2.  Change the amount of the required support of children.

      (Added to NRS by 1987, 2267; A 1989, 859; 1991, 1334; 1993, 486; 1997, 2295; 2001, 1866; 2017, 2284)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 51 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1989–2025 · leading case: Rivero v. Rivero, 216 P.3d 213 (Nev. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Rivero v. Rivero, 216 P.3d 213 (Nev. 2009). · cites it 53× “070 and NRS 125B.080. See NRS 125B.145(2)(b). Moreover, under NRS 125B.”
Fernandez v. Fernandez, 222 P.3d 1031 (Nev. 2010). · cites it 17× “070 and NRS 125B.080. We therefore reverse and remand.”
Wallace v. Wallace, 922 P.2d 541 (Nev. 1996). · cites it 10× “NRS 125B.080(6) provides that if a court awards child support which is greater or less than the formula establishes, it must set forth findings of fact providing the amount of support established under the formula and the basis for the deviation from the formula.”
Lewis v. Hicks, 843 P.2d 828 (Nev. 1992). · cites it 16× “2d 532, 536 (1989); see NRS 125B.080(4). When deviating from the formula, the trial court must “set forth findings of facts as to the basis for the deviation .”
Barbagallo v. Barbagallo, 779 P.2d 532 (Nev. 1989). · cites it 9× “” NRS 125B.080. In the present case, a “contested case involving the support of children,” the trial court applied the appropriate formula and ordered Alfred Barbagallo, the father of the child, to pay, as his statutory obligation for support, eighteen percent of his gross…”
Miller v. Miller, 412 P.3d 1081 (Nev. 2018). · cites it 13× “an additional 2 percent, of a parent's gross monthly income, but not more than the presumptive maximum amount per month per child set forth for *1084 the parent in subsection 2 for an obligation for support determined pursuant to subparagraphs (1) to (4), inclusive, unless the…”
Love v. Love, 959 P.2d 523 (Nev. 1998). · cites it 4× “unless the court sets forth findings of fact as to the basis for a different amount pursuant to subsection 6 of NRS 125B.080. [4] NRS 125B.080(9) states: The court shall consider the following factors when adjusting the amount of support of a child upon specific findings of…”
Jackson v. Jackson, 907 P.2d 990 (Nev. 1995). · cites it 9× “Randy also contends that the district court erred in modifying *1553 the child support award to $1,000 because this award is in excess of the statutory maximum of $500 and the district court failed to set forth specific findings of fact to justify a deviation from the statutory…”
Minnear v. Minnear, 814 P.2d 85 (Nev. 1991). · cites it 10× “[1] The referee also found that appellant was willfully underemployed and, pursuant to NRS 125B.080(8), recommended that his support obligation be increased to $500 per month per child.”
Rodgers v. Rodgers, 887 P.2d 269 (Nev. 1994). · cites it 8× “070 does not afford the district court discretion to consider community income, we conclude that, under appropriate circumstances, a noncustodial parent’s community property interest may be taken into account pursuant to NRS 125B.080. NRS 125B.070(1) sets forth a child support…”
Edgington v. Edgington, 80 P.3d 1282 (Nev. 2003). · cites it 2× “28 Janice asserts that under NRS 125B.080(3), the district court had a mandatory duty to investigate the alleged financial discrepancy concerning Donald’s income once the issue was raised.”
Wright v. Osburn, 970 P.2d 1071 (Nev. 1998). · cites it 4× “The district court decided, properly, in my opinion, that under the circumstances of this case and under the various NRS 125B.080 factors referred to in Barbagallo that the payment of $100.”
Show all 51 citing cases →
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125B.080(1) — 2 cases
Martinez v. Martinez (child Custody), 559 P.3d 863 (Nev. 2024).
Granger v. Granger (Nev. 2013).
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125B.080(1)(a) — 1 case
Rodgers v. Rodgers, 887 P.2d 269 (Nev. 1994). “070 does not afford the district court discretion to consider community income, we conclude that, under appropriate circumstances, a noncustodial parent’s community property interest may be taken into account pursuant to NRS 125B.080. NRS 125B.070(1) sets forth a child support…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125B.080(1)(b) — 2 cases
Rivero v. Rivero, 216 P.3d 213 (Nev. 2009). “070 and NRS 125B.080. See NRS 125B.145(2)(b). Moreover, under NRS 125B.”
Scott v. Scott, 822 P.2d 654 (Nev. 1991).
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125B.080(1)(h) — 1 case
Rivero v. Rivero, 216 P.3d 213 (Nev. 2009). “070 and NRS 125B.080. See NRS 125B.145(2)(b). Moreover, under NRS 125B.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125B.080(2) — 3 cases
Rivero v. Rivero, 216 P.3d 213 (Nev. 2009). “070 and NRS 125B.080. See NRS 125B.145(2)(b). Moreover, under NRS 125B.”
Rodgers v. Rodgers, 887 P.2d 269 (Nev. 1994). “070 does not afford the district court discretion to consider community income, we conclude that, under appropriate circumstances, a noncustodial parent’s community property interest may be taken into account pursuant to NRS 125B.080. NRS 125B.070(1) sets forth a child support…”
Backman v. Gelbman, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 8 (Nev. 2025).
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125B.080(3) — 6 cases
Rivero v. Rivero, 216 P.3d 213 (Nev. 2009). “070 and NRS 125B.080. See NRS 125B.145(2)(b). Moreover, under NRS 125B.”
Edgington v. Edgington, 80 P.3d 1282 (Nev. 2003). “28 Janice asserts that under NRS 125B.080(3), the district court had a mandatory duty to investigate the alleged financial discrepancy concerning Donald’s income once the issue was raised.”
Fernandez v. Fernandez, 222 P.3d 1031 (Nev. 2010). “070 and NRS 125B.080. We therefore reverse and remand.”
Scott v. Scott, 822 P.2d 654 (Nev. 1991).
Foley v. Foley (Nev. 2018).
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125B.080(4) — 5 cases
Lewis v. Hicks, 843 P.2d 828 (Nev. 1992). “2d 532, 536 (1989); see NRS 125B.080(4). When deviating from the formula, the trial court must “set forth findings of facts as to the basis for the deviation .”
Barbagallo v. Barbagallo, 779 P.2d 532 (Nev. 1989). “” NRS 125B.080. In the present case, a “contested case involving the support of children,” the trial court applied the appropriate formula and ordered Alfred Barbagallo, the father of the child, to pay, as his statutory obligation for support, eighteen percent of his gross…”
Wheeler v. Upton-Wheeler, 946 P.2d 200 (Nev. 1997).
Herz v. Gabler-Herz, 808 P.2d 1 (Nev. 1991).
Northrop v. State, Div. of Welfare & Supportive Serv's. (Nev. 2016).
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125B.080(5) — 9 cases
Fernandez v. Fernandez, 222 P.3d 1031 (Nev. 2010). “070 and NRS 125B.080. We therefore reverse and remand.”
Barbagallo v. Barbagallo, 779 P.2d 532 (Nev. 1989). “” NRS 125B.080. In the present case, a “contested case involving the support of children,” the trial court applied the appropriate formula and ordered Alfred Barbagallo, the father of the child, to pay, as his statutory obligation for support, eighteen percent of his gross…”
In Re Anders, 151 B.R. 543 (Bankr. D. Nev. 1993).
Lewis v. Hicks, 843 P.2d 828 (Nev. 1992). “2d 532, 536 (1989); see NRS 125B.080(4). When deviating from the formula, the trial court must “set forth findings of facts as to the basis for the deviation .”
Anastassatos v. Anastassatos, 913 P.2d 652 (Nev. 1996).
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125B.080(6) — 13 cases
Rivero v. Rivero, 216 P.3d 213 (Nev. 2009). “070 and NRS 125B.080. See NRS 125B.145(2)(b). Moreover, under NRS 125B.”
Wallace v. Wallace, 922 P.2d 541 (Nev. 1996). “NRS 125B.080(6) provides that if a court awards child support which is greater or less than the formula establishes, it must set forth findings of fact providing the amount of support established under the formula and the basis for the deviation from the formula.”
Fernandez v. Fernandez, 222 P.3d 1031 (Nev. 2010). “070 and NRS 125B.080. We therefore reverse and remand.”
Lewis v. Hicks, 843 P.2d 828 (Nev. 1992). “2d 532, 536 (1989); see NRS 125B.080(4). When deviating from the formula, the trial court must “set forth findings of facts as to the basis for the deviation .”
Miller v. Miller, 412 P.3d 1081 (Nev. 2018). “an additional 2 percent, of a parent's gross monthly income, but not more than the presumptive maximum amount per month per child set forth for *1084 the parent in subsection 2 for an obligation for support determined pursuant to subparagraphs (1) to (4), inclusive, unless the…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125B.080(6)(a) — 4 cases
Wheeler v. Upton-Wheeler, 946 P.2d 200 (Nev. 1997).
Miller v. Miller, 412 P.3d 1081 (Nev. 2018). “an additional 2 percent, of a parent's gross monthly income, but not more than the presumptive maximum amount per month per child set forth for *1084 the parent in subsection 2 for an obligation for support determined pursuant to subparagraphs (1) to (4), inclusive, unless the…”
Miller Vs. Miller, 2018 NV 16 (Nev. 2018).
Miller Vs. Miller, 2018 NV 16 (Nev. 2018).
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125B.080(6)(b) — 1 case
Miller v. Miller, 412 P.3d 1081 (Nev. 2018). “an additional 2 percent, of a parent's gross monthly income, but not more than the presumptive maximum amount per month per child set forth for *1084 the parent in subsection 2 for an obligation for support determined pursuant to subparagraphs (1) to (4), inclusive, unless the…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125B.080(7) — 1 case
Mehoves v. Mehoves (Nev. 2013).
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125B.080(8) — 7 cases
Rivero v. Rivero, 216 P.3d 213 (Nev. 2009). “070 and NRS 125B.080. See NRS 125B.145(2)(b). Moreover, under NRS 125B.”
Minnear v. Minnear, 814 P.2d 85 (Nev. 1991). “[1] The referee also found that appellant was willfully underemployed and, pursuant to NRS 125B.080(8), recommended that his support obligation be increased to $500 per month per child.”
Barbagallo v. Barbagallo, 779 P.2d 532 (Nev. 1989). “” NRS 125B.080. In the present case, a “contested case involving the support of children,” the trial court applied the appropriate formula and ordered Alfred Barbagallo, the father of the child, to pay, as his statutory obligation for support, eighteen percent of his gross…”
Herz v. Gabler-Herz, 808 P.2d 1 (Nev. 1991).
Dalaimo v. Dalaimo (Nev. 2017).
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125B.080(8)(1) — 1 case
Barbagallo v. Barbagallo, 779 P.2d 532 (Nev. 1989). “” NRS 125B.080. In the present case, a “contested case involving the support of children,” the trial court applied the appropriate formula and ordered Alfred Barbagallo, the father of the child, to pay, as his statutory obligation for support, eighteen percent of his gross…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125B.080(9) — 25 cases
Rivero v. Rivero, 216 P.3d 213 (Nev. 2009). “070 and NRS 125B.080. See NRS 125B.145(2)(b). Moreover, under NRS 125B.”
Wallace v. Wallace, 922 P.2d 541 (Nev. 1996). “NRS 125B.080(6) provides that if a court awards child support which is greater or less than the formula establishes, it must set forth findings of fact providing the amount of support established under the formula and the basis for the deviation from the formula.”
Fernandez v. Fernandez, 222 P.3d 1031 (Nev. 2010). “070 and NRS 125B.080. We therefore reverse and remand.”
Khaldy v. Khaldy, 892 P.2d 584 (Nev. 1995).
Love v. Love, 959 P.2d 523 (Nev. 1998). “unless the court sets forth findings of fact as to the basis for a different amount pursuant to subsection 6 of NRS 125B.080. [4] NRS 125B.080(9) states: The court shall consider the following factors when adjusting the amount of support of a child upon specific findings of…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125B.080(9)(1) — 3 cases
Lewis v. Hicks, 843 P.2d 828 (Nev. 1992). “2d 532, 536 (1989); see NRS 125B.080(4). When deviating from the formula, the trial court must “set forth findings of facts as to the basis for the deviation .”
Rodgers v. Rodgers, 887 P.2d 269 (Nev. 1994). “070 does not afford the district court discretion to consider community income, we conclude that, under appropriate circumstances, a noncustodial parent’s community property interest may be taken into account pursuant to NRS 125B.080. NRS 125B.070(1) sets forth a child support…”
Chambers ex rel. Cochran v. Sanderson, 822 P.2d 657 (Nev. 1991).
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125B.080(9)(a) — 1 case
Bonham Vs. Bonham (Child Custody) (Nev. 2020).
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125B.080(9)(e) — 3 cases
Lewis v. Hicks, 843 P.2d 828 (Nev. 1992). “2d 532, 536 (1989); see NRS 125B.080(4). When deviating from the formula, the trial court must “set forth findings of facts as to the basis for the deviation .”
Scott v. Scott, 822 P.2d 654 (Nev. 1991).
Hoover v. Hoover, 793 P.2d 1329 (Nev. 1990).
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125B.080(9)(i) — 3 cases
Wallace v. Wallace, 922 P.2d 541 (Nev. 1996). “NRS 125B.080(6) provides that if a court awards child support which is greater or less than the formula establishes, it must set forth findings of fact providing the amount of support established under the formula and the basis for the deviation from the formula.”
Kauffman v. Kauffman (Child Custody) (Nev. 2014).
Stinziano v. Walley (Child Custody) (Nev. 2014).
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125B.080(9)(j) — 1 case
Rivero v. Rivero, 195 P.3d 328 (Nev. 2008).
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125B.080(l)(a) — 1 case
Westgate v. Westgate, 887 P.2d 737 (Nev. 1994).
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125B.080(l)(b) — 2 cases
Parkinson v. Parkinson, 796 P.2d 229 (Nev. 1990).
Anastassatos v. Anastassatos, 913 P.2d 652 (Nev. 1996).
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.