Nevada requires an equal distribution of community assets and debts. Nevada Revised Statute 125.150(1)(b) states that in granting a divorce, the court:

(b) Shall, to the extent practicable, make an equal disposition of the community property of the parties, except that the court may make an unequal disposition of the community property in such proportions as it deems just if the court finds a compelling reason to do so and sets forth in writing the reasons for making the unequal disposition.

Furthermore, when a party is divorced the Court must also equally divide real property held as Joint Tenants.  However,

a party has made a contribution of separate property to the acquisition or improvement of property held in joint tenancy, the court may provide for the reimbursement of that party for his contribution. The amount of reimbursement must not exceed the amount of the contribution of separate property that can be traced to the acquisition or improvement of property held in joint tenancy, without interest or any adjustment because of an increase in the value of the property held in joint tenancy. The amount of reimbursement must not exceed the value, at the time of the disposition, of the property held in joint tenancy for which the contribution of separate property was made. In determining whether to provide for the reimbursement, in whole or in part, of a party who has contributed separate property, the court shall consider:

(a) The intention of the parties in placing the property in joint tenancy;

(b) The length of the marriage; and

(c) Any other factor which the court deems relevant in making a just and equitable disposition of that property.<

As used in this subsection, “contribution” includes a down payment, a payment for the acquisition or improvement of property, and a payment reducing the principal of a loan used to finance the purchase or improvement of property. The term does not include a payment of interest on a loan used to finance the purchase or improvement of property, or a payment made for maintenance, insurance or taxes on property.

SeeNevada Revised Statute 125.150(2).

The other common asset which must be divided are the parties’ pensions.  In Gemma v. Gemma, 105 Nev. 458, 462-463, 778 P.2d 429, 432 (1989), the Nevada Supreme Court held that the "time rule" should be used by the district court in determining the community interest in a retirement plan.  The Court explained that under the time rule the community interest is represented by a fraction, the numerator of which is the time the parties were married, the denominator is the total time worked before full retirement benefits may be received. Id. at 461, 778 P.2d at 431.  Therefore, the Court uses the name "time rule," since the community share is directly proportionate to the amount of "time" the parties were married.

In Gemma, the Nevada Supreme Court did not simply adopt the "time rule," it also mandated that the community share of benefits must be measured using the "wait and see" approach. Id. at 462, 778 P.2d at 431. More specifically, the Court held that the community gains an interest in the pension ultimately received by the employee spouse, not simply the pension that would be recovered were the spouse to retire at the time of divorce. Id. at 462, 778 P.2d at 432 (emphasis added). Because the size of the ultimate benefits are unknown to the court at the time it renders its decision, the parties must therefore "wait and see" to determine the size of the actual community benefit.