May award such alimony to the wife or to the husband, in a specified principal sum or as specified periodic payments, as appears just and equitable.

4. In granting a divorce, the court may also set apart such portion of the husband’s separate property for the wife’s support, the wife’s separate property for the husband’s support or the separate property of either spouse for the support of their children as is deemed just and equitable.

5. In the event of the death of either party or the subsequent remarriage of the spouse to whom specified periodic payments were to be made, all the payments required by the decree must cease, unless it was otherwise ordered by the court.

6. If the court adjudicates the property rights of the parties, or an agreement by the parties settling their property rights has been approved by the court, whether or not the court has retained jurisdiction to modify them, the adjudication of property rights, and the agreements settling property rights, may nevertheless at any time thereafter be modified by the court upon written stipulation signed and acknowledged by the parties to the action, and in accordance with the terms thereof.

7. If a decree of divorce, or an agreement between the parties which was ratified, adopted or approved in a decree of divorce, provides for specified periodic payments of alimony, the decree or agreement is not subject to modification by the court as to accrued payments. Payments pursuant to a decree entered on or after July 1, 1975, which have not accrued at the time a motion for modification is filed may be modified upon a showing of changed circumstances, whether or not the court has expressly retained jurisdiction for the modification. In addition to any other factors the court considers relevant in determining whether to modify the order, the court shall consider whether the income of the spouse who is ordered to pay alimony, as indicated on the spouse’s federal income tax return for the preceding calendar year, has been reduced to such a level that the spouse is financially unable to pay the amount of alimony he has been ordered to pay.

8. In granting a divorce the court shall consider the need to grant alimony to a spouse for the purpose of obtaining training or education relating to a job, career or profession. In addition to any other factors the court considers relevant in determining whether such alimony should be granted, the court shall consider:

(a) Whether the spouse who would pay such alimony has obtained greater job skills or education during the marriage; and

(b) Whether the spouse who would receive such alimony provided financial support while the other spouse obtained job skills or education.

9. If the court determines that alimony should be awarded pursuant to the provisions of subsection 8:

(a) The court, in its order, shall provide for the time within which the spouse who is the recipient of the alimony must commence the training or education relating to a job, career or profession.

(b) The spouse who is ordered to pay the alimony may, upon changed circumstances, file a motion to modify the order.

(c) The spouse who is the recipient of the alimony may be granted, in addition to any other alimony granted by the court, money to provide for:

(1) Testing of the recipient’s skills relating to a job, career or profession;

(2) Evaluation of the recipient’s abilities and goals relating to a job, career or profession;

(3) Guidance for the recipient in establishing a specific plan for training or education relating to a job, career or profession;

(4) Subsidization of an employer’s costs incurred in training the recipient;

(5) Assisting the recipient to search for a job; or

(6) Payment of the costs of tuition, books and fees for:

(I) The equivalent of a high school diploma;

(II) College courses which are directly applicable to the recipient’s goals for his career; or

(III) Courses of training in skills desirable for employment.

10. For the purposes of this section, a change of 20 percent or more in the gross monthly income of a spouse who is ordered to pay alimony shall be deemed to constitute changed circumstances requiring a review for modification of the payments of alimony. As used in this subsection, “gross monthly income” has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 125B.070.

In Heim v. Heim, 104 Nev. 605, 763 P.2d 678 (1988)(overturned on other grounds) the Nevada Supreme Court held that the District Judge must, in making alimony decisions, "Form a judgment as to what is equitable and just, having regard to the respective merits of the parties and to the condition of which they will be left by divorce."  Id. at 609, 763 P.2d at 680.  However, as the Nevada Supreme Court so aptly stated in Heim, divorces should not become a “handy vehicle for the summary disposal of old and used wives.  A woman is not a breeding cow to be nurtured during her years of fecundity, then conveniently and economically converted to cheap steaks when past her prime.”  Id. at 611, 793 P.2d at 682 (quoting In re Marriage of Brantner, 67 Cal.App.3d 416, 419, 136 Cal.Rptr. 635, 637 (1977)).  The Nevada Supreme Court then stated:

[I]n those cases in which it is the decision of the parties that the woman becomes the homemaker, the marriage of substantial duration and at separation the wife is to all intents and purposes unemployable, the husband simply has to face up to the fact that his support responsibilities are going to be of extended duration–perhaps for life.  This has nothing to do with feminism, sexism, male chauvinism or any other trendy social ideology.  It is ordinary common sense, basic decency and simple justice.

Id. at 611 - 612, 793 P.2d at 682 (quoting In re Marriage of Brantner, 67 Cal.App.3d at 420, 136 Cal.Rptr. at 637 (1977)).  In Sprenger v. Sprenger, 110 Nev. 855, 859, 878 P.2d 284, 287 (1994), the Nevada Supreme Court stated:

This court has articulated seven relevant factors in determining the appropriate alimony award in divorce case: (1) the wife’s career prior to marriage; (2) the length of the marriage; (3) the husband’s education during the marriage; (4) the wife’s marketability; (5) the wife’s ability to support herself; (6) whether the wife stayed home with the children; and (7) the wife’s award, besides child support and alimony.  Fondi v. Fondi, 106 Nev. 856, 862-64, 802 P.2d 1264, 1267-69 (1990).