evidence demonstrating that respondent earns a greater income than appellant or any evidence demonstrating that the district court abused its discretion in awarding respondent attorney fees and costs. See Cuzze v. Univ. & Cmty. Coll. Sys. of Nev., 123 Nev. 598, 603, 172 P.3d 131, 134-35 (2007) (explaining that an appellant is responsible for providing this court with an adequate appellate record and when the appellant fails to include necessary documentation in the record, this court will presume that the omitted portion of the record supports the district court's decision).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court's decision to award respondent attorney fees and costs.

Notwithstanding, we conclude that the district court did abuse its discretion in calculating the amount of the attorney fees award because neither the divorce decree nor any other document in the record presented demonstrates that the district court considered the factors under Brunzell v. Golden Gate National Bank, 85 Nev. 345, 349, 455 P.2d 31, 33 (1969), when calculating the reasonableness of the attorney fees and costs award.

See Miller, 121 Nev. at 623-24, 119 P.3d at 730 (providing that a district court must evaluate the Brunzell factors when awarding attorney fees).

Accordingly, we reverse the amount of attorney fees awarded to respondent and remand this matter to the district court for further proceedings in light of Brunzell.

It is so ORDERED.

Pickering

J. —C242)ta Parraguirre r Saitta SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A ea, cc: Hon. Cynthia Dianne Steel, District Judge, Family Court Division Robert E. Gaston, Settlement Judge McCoy Law Group Sigal Chattah Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A e