Nevada family-law case summaries

Hope Backman and Daniel Gelbman have a child together, born in 2013, and have been litigating child support for years. In 2019, Gelbman retired from firefighting at age 44 and started drawing a public retirement pension. He asked the court to lower his child support based on his reduced income. At a May 2020 hearing, the family court master concluded that Backman had not adequately documented her own earnings from her self-employed house-cleaning work, and the master "imputed" income to Backman equal to Gelbman's pension - meaning the master treated her as if she earned about $6,033 per month even though she may not have. Because the parents shared joint physical custody and were treated as having equal income, child support was set at zero. Backman filed several motions over the next few years to revisit child support, but each was denied and the zero-dollar order remained in place. In February 2023, she filed another motion, this time presenting documents showing she was earning roughly $600 to $800 per month from house cleaning, that the COVID-19 pandemic had affected her employment, and that she was behind on rent and car payments. A deputy district attorney at the hearing tried to explain to the master that Backman's documents showed a more than 20-percent drop in her income. Under Nevada law - specifically NRS 125B.145(4) - a 20-percent change in a parent's gross monthly income requires the court to review the child support order. The master cut the hearing short, said there had been no change in circumstances, and recommended leaving child support at zero. The district court agreed. The Court of Appeals reversed. The court answered two questions. First, when comparing income to determine whether there has been a 20-percent change, which prior order is the "controlling" one - the original order that actually calculated each parent's income, or any later orders that simply denied motions to modify without making new income findings? The court held that the controlling order is the most recent substantive order that set the support amount and made findings about each parent's income. Here, that was the May 2020 order, not the later denials. Second, what kind of evidence does a parent need to produce to trigger the mandatory review under NRS 125B.145(4)? The court held that the parent must present "prima facie evidence" - meaning credible evidence that, if accepted, would show the 20-percent change. Mere allegations are not enough, but a full trial-quality showing is not required at this threshold stage. Applying those rules, the court concluded that Backman's financial declaration, 2022 income information, profit-and-loss statement, supporting documents, and testimony that she was earning $600-$800 per month met the prima facie threshold and showed a more than 20-percent drop from the roughly $6,033 imputed to her in May 2020. The master was therefore required to conduct a substantive review - which would mean determining each parent's current income and applying the state's child support guidelines - and his refusal to do so was an abuse of discretion. The court sent the case back to the district court for that review. The court emphasized that requiring a review does not mean child support must actually be changed; it only means the court must look at the question on the merits. The Court of Appeals also explained what it was not deciding. It could not reconsider the May 2020 order itself, including the decision to impute income to Backman, because she did not appeal that order in time and did not list it in her notice of appeal.

Hope Backman and Daniel Gelbman have a child born in 2013 and have been fighting over child support since shortly afterward. From 2014 to 2019, Gelbman paid Backman between $731 and $858 per month. In 2019, Gelbman retired from firefighting at age 44 and asked the court to reduce his payments because his income had dropped by more than 20 percent. At a May 2020 hearing, Backman gave the family court master a required financial declaration, Venmo records from her house-cleaning work, and bank account screenshots. The master decided those records were not enough to figure out her income, so he "imputed" income to her - meaning he assigned her an income figure - equal to Gelbman's, and set child support at zero dollars. Over the next few years, Backman filed several motions asking the court to change the zero-dollar support order, citing things like the COVID-19 pandemic wiping out her work and Gelbman allegedly earning money from real estate and substitute teaching. Some of those motions lacked supporting documents, and all were denied; support stayed at zero. In February 2023, Backman tried again, this time saying she was unemployed, close to homelessness, and wanted to relocate. Before the hearing she submitted a financial statement, her 2022 income information, a 2022 profit-and-loss statement for her cleaning business, a text from her landlord about being behind on rent, a past-due auto loan notice, and a list of jobs she had applied to. At the hearing, when Backman tried to explain that she had lost her cleaning job, the master interrupted and said it was his turn to talk. A deputy district attorney tried to point out that her documents showed a more than 20 percent income drop since the last hearing, but the master interrupted again, said there was no change of circumstances, and ended the hearing. He then recommended denying her motion. The district court affirmed. The Court of Appeals agreed with Backman that the master got it wrong. Nevada law (NRS 125B.145(4)) says a change of 20 percent or more in a parent's income counts as a "changed circumstance" that requires the court to review the support order. The court explained the difference between reviewing an order and actually changing it: presenting evidence of a 20 percent income drop does not automatically lower or raise support, but it does require the master to actually look at the order and run the numbers under the proper guidelines. Because the master refused to conduct that review and made only conclusory findings, the appeals court reversed and sent the case back for proceedings consistent with its order. One thing the court did NOT do was review the original May 2020 order that imputed income to Backman. Because Backman did not name that order in her notice of appeal, the court said it could not review that order for abuse of discretion. But the court still used the May 2020 order as the baseline (the "controlling order") for measuring whether her income had changed by 20 percent.