# Sargeant v. Sargeant

> Nevada Supreme Court · April 7, 1972 · 88 Nev. 223

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9530997

## Case

- **Full name:** HARRY H. SARGEANT, Appellant and Cross-Respondent, v. MATILDA E. SARGEANT, Respondent and Cross-Appellant
- **Court:** Nevada Supreme Court
- **Decided:** April 7, 1972
- **Citations:** 88 Nev. 223; 495 P.2d 618; 1972 Nev. LEXIS 435
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Thompson
- **Judges:** Zenoff, Thompson, Batjer, Mowbray, Gunderson
- **Cited by:** 39 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9530997

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that parties in a divorce action should "be afforded [their] day in court without destroying [their] financial position" and that they "should be able to meet [their] adversary in the courtroom on an equal basis"
- finding a lump sum appropriate where the party ordered to pay alimony may attempt to avoid paying by liquidating or gifting his assets
- affirming a lump sum award of spousal support where the husband's conduct indicated the possibility he might liquidate or interfere with his assets to avoid paying support

## Opinion text

Thompson, J.,
dissenting in part:
I agree with the majority except for that part of the opinion overruling firmly established law [NRS 125.040; Allis v. Allis, 81 Nev. 653 , 408 P.2d 916 (1965), and the cases therein cited] in order to approve the trial court award of fees for the wife’s counsel. There is, of course, no duty imposed upon this court to follow decisions which are absurd or obsolete. Blind adherence to the requirements of stare decisis is not consonant with justice. On the other hand, precedent should not be changed unless the policies which underlie the proposed new rule are strong enough to outweigh the policy supporting the existing rule and the disadvantages of making a change. The majority opinion does not speak to this point.
I am not aware that the law regarding suit money as it existed until today worked in such a way as to preclude a wife from enjoying her day in court with competent representation. Consequently, I perceive no good reason for a change of law, and fear that such change may result in the mischief of redistributing the separate wealth of a party litigant simply because the opportunity to do so is present.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9530997. Public record. Not legal advice.