Dissipation of Marital Assets in Nevada

Legally reviewed by Jennifer Setters, J.D., Managing Attorney | Nevada Bar No. 13126 | Last updated September 2026

Quick Answer: Dissipation of marital assets, also called marital waste, is one spouse’s use of community property for a non-marital purpose while the marriage is breaking down. Under NRS 125.150(1)(b), Nevada courts divide community property equally unless there is a compelling reason, stated in writing, for an unequal division. Proven waste is one of the most established compelling reasons, and courts may compensate the innocent spouse by awarding a larger share of what remains.

Key takeaways:

Nevada presumes a 50/50 division of community property; proven marital waste lets a court deviate from it with written findings.
Spending on an affair is treated as waste regardless of when it happened; ordinary overconsumption during the marriage is not waste.
Unexplained transactions alone are not enough. The spouse alleging waste must identify specific spending and connect it to a non-marital purpose.
The Joint Preliminary Injunction can freeze community assets from the start of a Clark County divorce.
Remedies include an unequal division, offsets against the wasting spouse’s share, and equalization judgments.

Concerned assets are being wasted right now? Call (702) 979-1455.

If your spouse has been draining accounts, spending community funds on an affair, or quietly moving money to family members, Nevada law gives the court tools to account for it. This page explains what qualifies as dissipation of marital assets under Nevada law, what does not, how these claims are proven in the Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County, and what remedies may be available.

What Is Dissipation of Marital Assets?

Dissipation of marital assets is the use of community property by one spouse for a purpose unrelated to the marriage, at a time when the marriage is breaking down or a divorce is anticipated or pending. The terms marital waste, community waste, and wasteful dissipation all describe the same core conduct: one spouse unilaterally diminishing the community estate that both spouses are supposed to share.

Three elements matter in almost every waste claim:

Community funds or assets were used. Nevada is a community property state. Under NRS 123.220, income earned and assets acquired during the marriage generally belong to both spouses equally, regardless of whose name is on the account.
The spending served no marital purpose. Ordinary living expenses, family bills, and reasonable personal spending are not waste. Spending that benefits only one spouse, or a third party, is where claims arise.
The timing points to the breakdown of the marriage. Nevada’s courts distinguish wasting community assets while the marriage is collapsing or divorce proceedings are pending from simply overconsuming during an intact marriage. The major exception is spending on an extramarital affair, which the Nevada Supreme Court treats as waste whenever it occurred.

Waste claims are one piece of the larger property division process in a Nevada divorce, and they interact with questions of separate versus community property characterization when commingled funds are involved.

What Does Nevada Law Say About Marital Waste?

Nevada’s controlling statute is NRS 125.150(1)(b). It directs the court to make an equal disposition of community property “to the extent practicable,” except when the court finds a compelling reason for an unequal disposition and sets forth that reason in writing.

Four decisions define how Nevada courts apply that rule to community waste:

Lofgren v. Lofgren, 112 Nev. 1282 (1996) held that when community property is lost, expended, or destroyed through one spouse’s intentional misconduct, the court may treat that misconduct as a compelling reason to divide the remaining property unequally. The husband in Lofgren had transferred community funds to his father and used community money for his own purposes in violation of a preliminary injunction.
Putterman v. Putterman, 113 Nev. 606 (1997) expanded the list of compelling reasons to include negligent loss or destruction of community property and unauthorized gifts of community property, while cautioning that wasting assets during divorce proceedings must be distinguished from undercontributing or overconsuming during the marriage itself.
Kogod v. Cioffi-Kogod, 135 Nev. 64 (2019) affirmed an unequal distribution where the husband spent community funds on extramarital affairs, reasoning that an affair is inherently adverse to the marriage, so that spending is waste regardless of when it occurred. At the same time, the court held that ordinary consumption, even lavish consumption by a high earner, is not automatically dissipation, and that gifts to family members consistent with an established pattern of giving during the marriage are not waste.
Eivazi v. Eivazi (Nev. Ct. App. 2023) reversed a six-figure waste award because the district court failed to distinguish waste from discretionary spending and improperly required the husband to prove that every unexplained expenditure was not waste. Eivazi confirms that a waste claim needs a threshold evidentiary showing, not just a list of transactions the other spouse cannot immediately explain.

Two practical points follow. First, a judge cannot casually tilt the division; NRS 125.150(1)(b) requires written findings the record can support. Second, the spouse alleging waste needs evidence connecting specific spending to a non-marital purpose. Building that record is most of the work in these cases.

What Counts as Marital Waste in Nevada?

Every case turns on its facts, but recurring categories of wasting marital assets appear in Nevada practice:

Spending on an affair. Hotels, travel, gifts, rent for a third party, and similar expenditures of community funds on an extramarital relationship. Under Kogod, this category is waste whenever it occurred, because the conduct is inherently adverse to the marriage.
Transfers to family or friends outside any established pattern. Moving money to a relative’s account, “loans” that are never documented or repaid, or adding a family member to accounts on the eve of divorce. Under Kogod and Eivazi, the analysis turns on timing and history: a sudden or outsized transfer with no prior pattern of giving looks like waste; long-standing regular family support usually does not.
Unauthorized gifts of community property. Putterman specifically identifies unauthorized gifts as a potential compelling reason for unequal division.
Draining or hiding accounts. Emptying joint accounts as the marriage collapses, opening undisclosed accounts, converting funds to cash or cryptocurrency, or routing income away from the community. Concealment is addressed in depth in our guide to hidden assets in a Nevada divorce.
Gambling losses. A recurring allegation in Clark County. Nevada’s appellate courts have not decided a case squarely holding gambling losses to be waste, so trial courts weigh the historical gambling pattern during the marriage, the size of the losses, whether they were concealed, and how closely they track the breakdown of the marriage. Putterman’s “negligent loss or destruction of community property” language is the usual doctrinal hook.
Destroying or neglecting property. Intentionally damaging the marital residence, letting insurance lapse on a community asset, or abandoning a community business so it loses value.
Business siphoning. A spouse who controls a community business may run personal expenses through it, defer income until after divorce, or divert receivables to conceal the true value of the community estate. These patterns are common in high net worth divorce cases involving closely held businesses.
Reckless spending sprees. Sudden, uncharacteristic luxury purchases or debt run up on community credit once divorce is on the horizon, where the spending departs sharply from the marital pattern.

What Does Not Count as Dissipation?

Not every expenditure you disagree with is wasting community property, and overreaching on a waste claim can damage credibility with the court. Nevada’s appellate decisions and Eighth Judicial District practice generally exclude:

Ordinary living expenses. Rent, groceries, utilities, car payments, and reasonable personal spending, even after separation.
Ordinary consumption, even at a high level. Kogod instructs courts to differentiate ordinary consumption by higher-income earners from misappropriation of community assets solely for personal gain. Living well during the marriage is not misconduct.
Spending consistent with the marital pattern. Gifts to family members that continue an established history of giving, or recreational spending both spouses tolerated for years, are presumptively not waste. Eivazi also recognized that a spouse’s consent to familiar categories of spending can be implied under NRS 123.230.
Good-faith investments that lost money. A losing investment made in good faith is not automatically waste. The claim requires spending for a non-marital purpose or intentional or reckless destruction of value, not poor judgment.
Attorney’s fees and necessities. Each spouse is generally permitted to use community funds for the necessities of life and to retain counsel; large disparities are addressed through fee motions, not waste findings.

The line between heavy spending and legal waste is where an experienced Nevada family law attorney earns their keep. Timing, concealment, purpose, and the marital spending pattern are usually what separate the two.

How Do You Prove Dissipation of Assets?

The legal standard comes first. Under Kogod and Eivazi, the spouse alleging waste must identify specific transactions and present evidence supporting a reasonable inference that the spending served a selfish purpose unrelated to the marriage, typically during the breakdown of the marriage. Unexplained transactions alone are not automatically waste, and a court cannot simply demand that the spending spouse justify every entry on a bank statement. Once that threshold showing is made, however, the spending spouse’s records and explanations become central, and thin answers hurt them.

In the Eighth Judicial District Court, the evidence typically comes together through several channels:

Financial Disclosure Forms. Each party in a Nevada divorce must file and serve a sworn Financial Disclosure Form, generally within 30 days after service under Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 16.2. Omissions and inconsistencies in the other spouse’s FDF, compared against bank records and tax returns, are often the first concrete evidence of dissipation.

Formal discovery. Interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admission can compel the other spouse to account for specific withdrawals and transfers, and deficient NRCP 16.2 disclosures can themselves become leverage. Discovery of this depth generally happens within a contested divorce.

Subpoenas to third parties. Banks, brokerages, casinos, and employers can be subpoenaed directly. Casino player’s club records and win/loss statements are frequently important in Clark County gambling cases.

Forensic accounting. In higher-asset cases or where a community business is involved, a forensic accountant can trace funds, reconstruct cash flow, and quantify the alleged dissipation for the court.

Timing analysis. A well-built case chronology showing that unusual spending began when the marriage broke down, or immediately after service of the divorce complaint, ties the conduct to the dissipation standard.

What Marital Waste Looks Like in Real Nevada Cases

Numbers make the remedy concrete. In Lofgren, the trial court found that the husband had transferred community funds to his father and used community money for his own purposes in violation of a preliminary injunction. The total community estate was $992,573, so an equal split would have given each spouse $496,286.50. To account for the waste, the court awarded the wife $540,393, about $44,106.50 more than a one-half share, and the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed.

The scale can be much larger. In Kogod, the district court found the husband had dissipated approximately $4.09 million of a roughly $47 million community estate, much of it on a long-running concealed affair, and the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed an unequal distribution in the wife’s favor on that basis.

Eivazi shows the other side: the Court of Appeals reversed a $100,357.50 unequal disposition because the record did not properly separate true waste from ordinary discretionary spending. The lesson cuts both ways. Documented, purpose-specific evidence wins these claims; a pile of unexplained transactions does not.

The Joint Preliminary Injunction: Stopping Waste Before It Grows

Clark County divorce practice includes a powerful preventive tool: the Joint Preliminary Injunction, commonly called the JPI. Either party may request it, and the Clark County Family Law Self-Help Center publishes the standard form. The JPI binds the requesting party when it is issued and the other party when it is served. Once in effect, it restrains both spouses from transferring, encumbering, concealing, selling, or otherwise disposing of community property, except in the usual course of business, for the necessities of life, or for reasonable attorney’s fees in the case, without written consent or a court order.

The JPI matters for waste claims in two directions. If you fear your spouse will start moving assets, requesting the JPI at filing creates an enforceable court order from day one. And if community assets are dissipated after the JPI takes effect, the violation strengthens the waste case considerably. In Kogod, the Nevada Supreme Court explained that the appropriate remedy for spending that violates the JPI is generally a compensating unequal disposition of community property rather than separate monetary sanctions, and depending on the conduct and the order, contempt and fee-shifting may also be available.

What Remedies Are Available for Marital Waste?

When a Nevada court finds dissipation, it has several ways to account for it:

Unequal division of the remaining community property under NRS 125.150(1)(b), with the wasted amount effectively charged against the dissipating spouse’s share.
Treating the dissipated assets as if they still exist. The court can value the community estate as though the wasted funds were still in it and award the innocent spouse an offsetting share of what remains.
Money judgments or equalization payments when the remaining property is insufficient to balance the ledger.
Attorney’s fees and costs, particularly where the misconduct forced extended discovery or forensic work.
Post-decree relief for concealed assets. Under NRS 125.150(3), community property left out of the decree because of fraud or mistake can be brought back before the court by motion filed within three years after discovery of the fraud or mistake.

How much any of these remedies yields depends on the evidence and on what property remains to divide, which is why early preservation of records matters so much.

What Should You Do If You Suspect Your Spouse Is Wasting Assets?

Move quickly and quietly. Evidence of dissipation degrades fast, and every month of inaction can mean more of the community estate is gone.

Preserve records now. Download bank and credit card statements, tax returns, loan applications, and business records while you still have access. Do not alter anything; just secure copies.
Document what you observe. Dates, amounts, and unexplained changes in behavior around money. A contemporaneous log is far more persuasive than reconstructed memory.
Do not retaliate in kind. Draining accounts yourself creates a mirror-image waste claim against you and undermines your credibility.
Get the JPI in place. If a divorce is being filed, ask your attorney about requesting the Joint Preliminary Injunction immediately.
Talk to a Nevada family law attorney early. The strategy for a gambling-loss case differs from a business-siphoning case, and the discovery plan should be built around the specific conduct from the start.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Nevada a 50/50 divorce state even if my spouse wasted money?
Nevada starts from equal division of community property, but NRS 125.150(1)(b) lets the court order an unequal division when there is a compelling reason stated in writing. Proven marital waste is one of the most established compelling reasons under Nevada Supreme Court precedent, including Lofgren, Putterman, and Kogod.

Do gambling losses count as marital waste in Las Vegas divorces?
They can, but it is fact-specific. Nevada’s appellate courts have not squarely decided a gambling-waste case, so trial courts weigh the historical gambling pattern during the marriage, the size and concealment of the losses, and how closely they track the breakdown of the marriage. Concealed or sharply escalating losses during the breakdown present the strongest claims.

Does spending money after separation automatically count as dissipation?
No. Ordinary living expenses, necessities, and reasonable personal spending after separation are not waste, and the JPI itself allows usual-course and necessity spending. What draws scrutiny is post-separation spending for a purpose unrelated to the marriage, such as transfers to third parties or funding a new relationship with community money.

What if the money was spent on an affair?
Community funds spent on an extramarital relationship are the clearest category of waste in Nevada. In Kogod, the Nevada Supreme Court held that affair spending is dissipation regardless of when it occurred, because the conduct is inherently adverse to the marriage. Hotel charges, travel, gifts, and payments to or for a third party can all support an unequal division.

How far back can a Nevada court look at spending?
There is no fixed statutory window. Courts focus on spending connected to the breakdown of the marriage, usually the period surrounding separation and the divorce filing. Affair-related spending is the exception and can reach further back under Kogod. Earlier concealed conduct can also matter for credibility and tracing.

Can cryptocurrency transfers be dissipation of assets?
Yes. Converting community funds to cryptocurrency, moving them to undisclosed wallets, or transferring them to third parties is analyzed like any other concealment or transfer, and blockchain records are increasingly traceable through discovery and forensic work.

Does marital waste affect alimony in Nevada?
Waste is addressed through property division rather than alimony. Kogod treats alimony as a need-based determination under NRS 125.150, not a punishment, so the remedy for dissipation is an unequal disposition or offset in the property division, which can in turn affect the need calculation.

Can I get reimbursed if the wasted money is already gone?
Potentially, yes. The court does not need the dissipated funds to still exist. It can charge the wasted amount against the dissipating spouse’s share of the remaining property or enter an equalization judgment, as the Lofgren award illustrates. The practical recovery depends on the evidence and on what property remains.

Does hiding assets count as waste?
Secreting assets is treated similarly to waste. Putterman identifies secretion of assets during divorce as a basis for unequal division, and under NRS 125.150(3), community property omitted from the decree through fraud or mistake can be brought back before the court within three years after the fraud or mistake is discovered. Our guide on how courts uncover hidden assets covers the investigation process in detail.

What evidence is strongest in a Nevada marital waste case?
Specific, documented transactions tied to a non-marital purpose and to the timing of the breakdown: subpoenaed bank and casino records, transfers to identifiable third parties, business records showing diverted income, and a chronology connecting the spending to the collapse of the marriage. Under Eivazi, a list of unexplained transactions without that connective evidence is not enough.

Marital waste cases are document-driven, deadline-sensitive, and highly fact-specific. Our Nevada-licensed attorneys handle dissipation claims throughout Clark County, from tracing concealed transfers to enforcing the Joint Preliminary Injunction and presenting unequal-division arguments in the Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Division. We represent clients in English and Spanish from our Downtown Las Vegas and Summerlin offices.

Call (702) 979-1455 or contact us online to schedule a confidential consultation.

Gastelum Attorneys
Downtown: 718 S 8th Street, Las Vegas, NV 89101
Summerlin: 1635 Village Center Cir, Ste. 250, Las Vegas, NV 89134

Dissipation of Marital Assets and Marital Waste in Nevada Divorce