Nevada family-law case summaries

Bruce and Andrea Patterson were getting divorced. During the divorce, their lawyers exchanged letters and emails working out how to divide the couple's shared property and debts. Bruce's lawyer eventually emailed Andrea's lawyer saying Bruce agreed to all the settlement terms except one about the couple's IRS tax debt, and suggested that the tax issue be handled at a trial while the rest of the terms were locked in by agreement. The trial never happened. Instead, the parties filed paperwork canceling the trial because they were "finalizing the terms of their divorce," and the court accepted it. Later, Bruce said he changed his mind about one of the already-agreed terms. Andrea then asked the court to enforce the settlement. The court held a hearing and found that, except for the IRS tax debt issue, the parties had agreed to a set of terms. The court enforced those agreed terms and set a separate evidentiary hearing to deal with the tax debt. The parties then filed more paperwork agreeing to split their personal IRS tax debt for 2016 and 2017 equally, canceling that hearing too. When Andrea prepared the final divorce decree, Bruce got a new lawyer and refused to sign it, saying he had not known about the settlement and had concerns about its terms and about assets and debts he believed were left out. Andrea submitted the decree without his signature, and the court entered it. Bruce then asked the court to undo essentially the entire divorce decree. He made three main arguments: (1) his earlier lawyer had agreed to the settlement without his permission; (2) the decree left out some assets and about $188,000 in debts; and (3) the decree required him to make what he called an "absurd" $150,000 "equalization payment" (a payment one spouse makes the other to even out the split of property) even though, he claimed, there was no marital property and the money did not exist. The district court denied his motion, and Bruce appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed. On the claim that his old lawyer acted without his consent, the court explained that under Nevada Supreme Court precedent, a lawyer who fraudulently settles a case without authority commits a "fraud upon the court" that can justify setting aside a judgment. But the court found Bruce knew about the settlement as early as May 27, 2021, when he signed a sworn declaration, and never complained at that time or at the enforcement hearing that his lawyer acted without permission. He raised the objection only after the decree was entered and offered no supporting evidence. Because proving fraud upon the court requires "clear and convincing evidence," and Bruce offered none, the court found no abuse of discretion. The court also explained that a hearing is required before granting such relief, but not before denying it. On the $150,000 equalization payment, the court noted that the emails showed Bruce's own lawyer had offered to raise the payment to $150,000 in exchange for Andrea giving up an indemnification demand, and that both Bruce and his lawyer already knew about the hot air balloon business accident and related lawsuits when they negotiated. Because Bruce knew about these circumstances at the time, they could not amount to the "mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect" required to reopen a judgment under NRCP 60(b)(1). He provided only a self-serving declaration and no documentation. On the roughly $188,000 in allegedly omitted debts, the court found Bruce's claims vague and unsupported. The district court had told Bruce it could handle omitted assets and debts through a separate motion under NRS 125.150(3) and invited him to file one if he had a valid claim. The Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion in that approach.