Nevada family-law case summaries

This is a very short procedural order, not a decision on the merits of any dispute. Germana Rappa had appealed a matter to the Nevada Supreme Court against Aurelio Lorico. The case came out of the family division of the district court. Before the Supreme Court reached any decision about who was right, the two sides reached an agreement to end the appeal. They filed what is called a stipulation - a formal, mutual agreement between the parties submitted to the court. The court accepted that agreement and dismissed the appeal. As part of their agreement, each side agreed to pay its own attorney fees and costs, rather than one side reimbursing the other. The court entered its order to that effect. The opinion does not describe the underlying facts of the family-law dispute or address any legal questions.

This is a very short procedural order, not a decision on the merits of any dispute. Germana Rappa had asked the Court of Appeals for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition - a type of court order that asks a higher court either to direct a lower court to do something it is required to do (mandamus) or to stop a lower court from doing something it should not do (prohibition). The case arose out of the family division of the Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County, and the other person involved (the "real party in interest") was Aurelio Lorico. Before the court decided anything about the underlying issues, both sides agreed to end the matter. They filed a stipulation - a formal agreement between the parties - to dismiss the petition, and they agreed that each side would pay its own attorney fees and costs. The court approved that agreement and dismissed the petition. The opinion does not describe what the underlying dispute was about or resolve any legal question.

Milan Rupel and Theresa Galten married in 2001. In July 2017, Galten filed for divorce, raising only issues about how to divide the couple's debts and assets. The case went to a five-day bench trial (a trial decided by a judge rather than a jury) in 2019. After the original judge retired, a new judge entered a divorce decree in February 2021 that largely repeated the earlier findings. Both sides appealed. Several disputes were at the center of the case. First, Rupel had transferred $90,550 he inherited from his mother into a shared "community" bank account. At trial, both spouses agreed (stipulated) that this money had become community property - meaning property owned jointly by the marriage. But the district court instead labeled the transfer "marital waste" (spending or destroying marital money for a selfish purpose unrelated to the marriage) and awarded Galten half of that amount ($45,275) as a separate award. The Court of Appeals found this was a mistake: because the money was community property to be split evenly, giving Galten a separate $45,275 award and then also splitting the account meant she effectively received an extra $45,275. The court reversed that award and directed the district court to simply divide the account equally. Second, the couple disputed the value of an investment called the Kai-Zen Plan, a premium-financed retirement plan whose future value could only be estimated. Each side's financial expert gave a value - Galten's expert said about $405,531, Rupel's expert said about $143,714 (or $148,714, as also stated in the opinion). The district court instead used $554,902, a figure that came from a years-old projection on a trial exhibit that itself said the value was not guaranteed. The Court of Appeals held that relying on that outdated estimate was an error and sent the valuation back to the district court for more fact-finding. Third, there was a bank account in Galten's name that held $63,789.67 before the marriage. Community funds were later added to it. The district court found the pre-marriage amount was Galten's separate property, but it wrote $67,789.67 in the decree - $4,000 more than the record supported. The Court of Appeals agreed this was a clerical error and sent it back to be corrected, but otherwise upheld the finding that the original amount was Galten's separate property. The court rejected the parties' other arguments. It held that money Rupel spent maintaining his separate vehicles, and cash he withdrew after the divorce filing for meals, haircuts, massages, and similar expenses, was not marital waste, because there was enough evidence supporting the district court's findings. It held that the district court was correct not to enforce a supposed agreement to end the community on December 31, 2019, because the emails and testimony showed the spouses never actually agreed on the essential terms. It held that Galten did not prove Rupel earned an extra $100,246 in 2016, since Rupel and his accountant testified that figure resulted from a reporting error later corrected. And it rejected Galten's argument that the court lacked jurisdiction, concluding the decree was a final judgment.