Nevada family-law case summaries

Edgar and Maria married in 2014 and have two young children. In September 2020, the couple had an altercation during which, according to the opinion, an intoxicated Edgar accused Maria of infidelity, called her derogatory names, and hit her arm while she held both children. Maria called the police, Edgar was arrested for battery related to domestic violence (though no formal charges were filed), and Maria obtained a temporary protection order (a TPO, which is a court order intended to protect a person from further harm) that was extended several times. Edgar then filed for divorce and asked for joint physical custody (an arrangement where both parents share significant time with the children). In January 2021, the district court entered a temporary order giving Edgar parenting time on weekends and requiring him to pay $415 per month in child support, based on the income he reported at the time. After a trial spread over four days between October 2021 and February 2022, the district court issued a 58-page divorce decree. The court gave Maria primary physical custody, subject to Edgar's weekend parenting time on three weekends per month. In doing so, the court applied a legal presumption in Nevada law that weighs against joint physical custody when a parent has committed domestic violence. The court found that Maria proved, by clear and convincing evidence (a high standard of proof), that Edgar committed multiple acts of domestic violence, including pushing, hitting, slapping, grabbing her by the neck, and sexual assault on at least one occasion. The court also gave Maria the child tax credit, found that Edgar had been dishonest about his income when the earlier $415 support figure was set, raised his ongoing child support to $1,118 per month, and declined to make Maria repay Edgar half of the COVID-19 stimulus money she had received. On appeal, Edgar argued the custody ruling lacked adequate evidentiary support, that joint custody was appropriate, that Maria failed to prove domestic violence, that the temporary support amount was wrong, that the income assigned to Maria was too low, that the tax credit should have been split, that he should have gotten half the stimulus money, and that the judge was biased. The Court of Appeals rejected all of these arguments. A recurring reason was that Edgar did not file the trial transcripts with the appellate court, even though he had requested them. Under Nevada law, when the person appealing fails to provide necessary parts of the record, the appellate court assumes the missing material supports the lower court's decision. The court also found that some of Edgar's arguments were either raised too late (never presented to the trial court) or not supported by developed reasoning. On the bias claim, the court explained that disagreeing with a judge's conclusions is not enough; a party must show bias rooted in something outside the case or a deep-seated hostility making a fair decision impossible, which Edgar did not do. The court affirmed the divorce decree in full.

Parviz and Fatemeh Eivazi were married in Las Vegas in 2001 (after an earlier marriage in Iran). Fatemeh filed for divorce in 2016. The case was hard-fought, with many motions and a multi-day trial. After trial, the judge asked both spouses to submit proposed final orders. The judge then signed Fatemeh's 61-page proposed decree word-for-word, without changing anything. That decree required Parviz to pay Fatemeh more than $400,000 - including ten years of alimony at $5,000 a month, attorney fees, expert fees, repayment for "wasted" community money, and the proceeds from selling the marital home. Parviz appealed. The Nevada Court of Appeals used this case to send a strong message about a common practice: judges sometimes ask the winning party's lawyer to write up the order. The court did not ban the practice. It said adopting a party's proposed order word-for-word is not, by itself, an abuse of discretion - but judges who do so take on the risk that any mistakes in the document will be their mistakes. The court urged judges to read proposed orders carefully and lawyers to make sure those drafts are accurate and legally sound. Turning to the decree itself, the court found a number of problems. On "marital waste" (the idea that one spouse improperly spent community money), the trial court had treated any spending Fatemeh did not know about as waste, and required Parviz to disprove waste by clear and convincing evidence. The Court of Appeals said this flipped the burden the wrong way and used too broad a definition of waste. Under Nevada Supreme Court precedent (Kogod), waste generally means using marital money for a selfish purpose unrelated to the marriage, typically when the marriage is already breaking down. The trial court grouped together years of unexplained checks and cash and called it all waste - that was an abuse of discretion. On alimony, the court found the trial judge had gone through the statutory list of factors only superficially. Among other problems, the judge calculated Parviz's income from a website printout that was never actually admitted into evidence; failed to evaluate Fatemeh's earning capacity (not just her current lack of income); inconsistently described Parviz's ability to pay; and improperly leaned on Parviz's alleged misconduct in the divorce when deciding alimony, which Nevada law forbids. On attorney fees, the trial court had reconsidered an earlier order and awarded Fatemeh all her fees from the very beginning of the case - even fees that had already been ruled on in earlier orders, and costs that Fatemeh had not even asked for in her motion. The Court of Appeals reversed and told the trial court to limit any reconsideration to the fees actually at issue. A separate $59,000 award to "reimburse" Fatemeh for money she borrowed to fund the litigation was reversed because the decree contained no findings explaining it and it appeared to overlap with the attorney fee award. A $7,450 award for translation services as an expert fee was reversed because the trial court did not justify exceeding the statutory cap. The court affirmed two parts of the decree: an award for interim spousal support arrears and the division of insurance proceeds from Fatemeh's car accident. It also affirmed the order to sell the marital home, because Parviz himself had asked the trial court to order the sale - he could not complain on appeal about an outcome he invited. The unequal split of community debt, by contrast, was reversed because the decree gave no reason for the inequality. The case goes back to the trial court to redo the parts that were reversed.

Dawnette and Christopher Davidson divorced in 2006. Their divorce decree said that Dawnette would sign over her interest in the marital home to Christopher (using a "quitclaim deed," which is a document transferring whatever ownership rights one person has in property to another). In exchange, Christopher was supposed to pay Dawnette half of the equity in the home, based on a 2006 appraisal. About two weeks after the divorce, the two reconciled and lived together in the home until 2011, though they never remarried. Dawnette signed and delivered the quitclaim deed in 2006. Christopher says he later refinanced the home and paid Dawnette her share; Dawnette says he never paid her. In 2014 - eight years after she delivered the deed - Dawnette filed a motion in the family court asking the court to enforce the decree and order Christopher to pay her. Christopher argued that her claim was too old: Nevada has a six-year deadline (a "statute of limitations") for actions to enforce a court judgment, and that deadline had passed. The district court agreed with Christopher and denied her motion without deciding whether Christopher had actually paid. On appeal, Dawnette made two main arguments. First, she said that family courts have a special, unlimited power to enforce divorce decrees under NRS 125.240, so the six-year deadline should not apply. Second, she said even if the deadline did apply, the clock should not have started running until 2011, when the couple finally separated for good - because while she was still living in the house, it was not reasonable to expect her to demand payment. The Nevada Supreme Court rejected both arguments and affirmed the district court. The Court explained that NRS 125.240 applies to "separate maintenance" cases (a different kind of family law action), not to divorces. The Court also pointed out that when the Legislature has wanted to exempt certain family-law claims from a deadline, it has said so explicitly - for example, NRS 125B.050 says there is no time limit on collecting back child support. Because the Legislature has not done that for property-division provisions in divorce decrees, the ordinary six-year deadline in NRS 11.190(1)(a) applies. As to when the clock starts, the Court held that under NRS 11.200 and a long-standing 1892 Nevada decision, Borden v. Clow, the statute of limitations began running when Dawnette delivered the quitclaim deed in 2006. That was the moment Christopher's debt to her arose. Because she did not file her motion until 2014, more than six years later, her claim was too late. The Court also noted that Dawnette could have used NRS 17.214 to renew the judgment and avoid this problem, but did not. The Court acknowledged Dawnette's concern that this rule could give an ex-spouse a "windfall" by simply waiting out the deadline, but said the Legislature has also chosen not to let people "sit" indefinitely on potential claims.

Craig and Catherine Doan married in 1985 and later divorced. Craig worked as an air traffic controller for the FAA for more than 23 years and earned federal retirement benefits. During the divorce, both spouses filed sworn financial statements indicating they had retirement accounts or pensions, and Catherine's pretrial memorandum specifically identified Craig's federal retirement benefits as property earned during the marriage. After their lawyers withdrew shortly before trial, the couple settled their property division themselves at a conference with the judge. The final divorce decree, entered in August 2003, divided one retirement asset (a voluntary thrift savings plan) but said nothing about Craig's FAA retirement benefit. Six years later, in June 2009, Catherine asked the court to divide the FAA retirement benefit, arguing it had been left out of the decree and should now be split. The district court first denied her motion, finding the benefit had been fully disclosed during the divorce. But after Catherine asked the court to reconsider, the court changed course: it found the benefit had been left out of the decree by "mutual mistake" and divided it using a federal formula. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed. It explained that under NRCP 60(b) - a rule of court procedure allowing a party to ask for relief from a final judgment - a motion based on mistake, newly discovered evidence, or fraud must be filed within six months of the judgment. Catherine waited more than six years, so her motion was too late. The court then asked whether her request could instead be treated as an "independent action" - a separate lawsuit seeking relief in equity, which is not subject to the six-month deadline but requires a much higher showing: it is available "only to prevent a grave miscarriage of justice." The court held that Catherine could not meet that standard. Nevada law recognizes that when a marital asset was never litigated or decided in the divorce - for example, because neither party mentioned it - it can be divided later through an equitable action. But here, the FAA retirement benefit was disclosed and discussed throughout the divorce proceedings: it appeared in Craig's pay statements, W-2 forms, and financial affidavit, and Catherine's own pretrial memorandum named it as property to be divided. The district court even found that the benefit was considered in setting the length of alimony. The Supreme Court explained that the key question is whether the asset was actually litigated and decided in the divorce, not simply whether it was written into the decree. Because the benefit was before the court in the original divorce, it was not an "omitted asset," and leaving it out of the written decree was not the kind of exceptional circumstance that justifies reopening a final judgment years later. Whether Nevada should have a law allowing courts to divide property merely left out of a decree - as California does - is, the court said, a question for the Legislature.