Nevada family-law case summaries

Valerie Allen and Jashi Mark Allen were married in Jamaica in 2012. Valerie is a United States citizen; Jashi is a Jamaican citizen. According to the opinion, they met while Valerie was on vacation in Jamaica, and for several years Jashi lived in Jamaica while Valerie lived in Florida and visited him. In 2015, Jashi began the immigration process, and Valerie hired an attorney who obtained a United States permanent resident card for Jashi in 2017. Jashi then moved to Utah for trucking school and later relocated to Las Vegas, while Valerie stayed in Florida. The couple separated in 2018, and Jashi filed for divorce in Nevada. Valerie responded and filed a counterclaim, alleging that Jashi had used her for immigration purposes. Because the couple had no minor children, the dispute focused on dividing their property and debts, Valerie's request for spousal support (alimony), and her request to be reimbursed for money she spent to help Jashi immigrate. After a trial in March 2023, the district court entered a divorce decree in April 2023. The court found that the parties' incomes did not support an alimony award and that Valerie had, in any event, given up (abandoned) her alimony claim. The court also found no evidence that Jashi committed fraud in the marriage, and it found that Valerie's requests for reimbursement were not supported by law. The court added that even if Valerie had used her own separate funds to pay for trips and immigration costs, those funds would be treated as gifts to the marital community. The court divided the property: each party kept their own vehicles, personal property, bank accounts, and debts; Valerie kept her mobile home from before the marriage; and Jashi kept his trucking company and tractor truck. To balance things out, the court awarded Valerie a share of the equity in Jashi's tractor truck and a share of community funds used for his truck-driving training, ordering Jashi to pay Valerie $8,750 as an "equalization payment." The court denied Valerie's request for attorney fees. In May 2023, Valerie filed a motion to set aside the divorce decree, claiming that Jashi committed "perjury, slander, libel, obstruction of justice, and ha[d] made false claims" at trial, particularly about his assets. She also asked to have the district court judge removed from the case (recusal). She submitted various exhibits, including vehicle statements, photos, an online report about Jashi, attorney billing statements, medical records, and other documents. The Chief Judge denied the request to disqualify the district court judge in August 2023. The district court then denied the motion to set aside. The court noted that Valerie's own motion acknowledged that her trial counsel had already argued that Jashi inaccurately portrayed his income, so her claims of perjury and other misconduct were merely allegations. The court also found that Valerie had not shown that her new exhibits could not have been produced at the earlier hearing with reasonable diligence, because that evidence was readily accessible at the time. Valerie then appealed. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed. It concluded that the record showed the district court properly divided the community property and calculated the equalization payment, so there was no abuse of discretion. It found that Valerie had not identified specific omitted assets in the lower court and could not raise such arguments for the first time on appeal. On the motion to set aside, the court found that Valerie did not develop a cogent argument explaining why her new evidence could not have been discovered earlier. On alimony, reimbursement, marriage fraud, and attorney fees, the court found that Valerie either failed to develop arguments or failed to address the district court's specific findings, so those challenges were waived.

Michelle Iranpour and Mark Winningham married in 2013 and had three minor children. In 2021, Iranpour filed for divorce. Over the course of the case, the district court held several hearings addressing contested issues including child custody, child support, spousal support, and how to divide the couple's shared property and debts. In July 2022, Iranpour's lawyer asked to postpone a scheduled trial in order to gather more information about alleged "marital waste" (wasting of shared assets) by Winningham. The court granted that request and rescheduled the trial for October 2022. Three days before the new trial date, Iranpour's lawyer again asked to postpone the trial, and the court set that request to be heard on the same day as the trial itself. According to the opinion, Iranpour's lawyer then did not show up either for the hearing on the postponement request or for the trial. Because the lawyer did not appear and did not show a good reason to delay, the district court declined to take any new evidence and said it would decide the divorce based on the briefs, arguments, and evidence already presented in the earlier hearings. On October 13, 2022, the court entered the divorce decree with its findings on custody, support, and property. On appeal, Iranpour made a single main argument: that the court held a trial without her lawyer present despite her requests. The Court of Appeals found that this description did not match the record. The transcripts Iranpour herself submitted showed the court did not hold a trial in her lawyer's absence; instead, because her counsel failed to appear and gave no good cause to postpone, the court resolved the case on the materials already in the record. The appeals court concluded that Iranpour never explained how the court's actions actually harmed her or pointed to any specific mistake in the decree, so she failed to present a developed legal argument the court could consider. The court also noted that, to the extent she was challenging the district court's earlier rulings, she had not included the necessary orders and transcripts in her appeal record. Under Nevada law, when parts of the record are missing, the appeals court assumes those missing materials support the lower court's decision. For these reasons, the court affirmed the divorce decree.