Nevada family-law case summaries

Conrad and Heidi Roberson were married, had two children, and divorced in 2018-2021 after extensive litigation. After their divorce was finalized by a stipulated decree in October 2021, Conrad asked the trial court to change the decree and the child-custody arrangement. The trial court said no, and Conrad appealed that decision. While that earlier appeal was still going on, Heidi went back to the trial court and asked it to order Conrad to pay $25,000 to help cover her lawyer costs in fighting the appeal. (This kind of payment is called "pendente lite" attorney fees - fees a court orders during an ongoing case so one party can carry on or defend the suit.) Heidi explained that Conrad was behind on what he owed under the decree, and her lawyer noted that the appeal had been removed from the settlement program, with a briefing schedule already set. The trial court agreed and ordered Conrad to pay the $25,000, pointing to a large gap in the parties' incomes: Heidi earns about "$50,000 a year along with court-ordered child support and alimony," while Conrad earns approximately $500,000 a year. Conrad then filed a motion asking the court to reconsider (a "motion to alter or amend") and to pause the order. He argued that the court did not properly weigh his finances - including the alimony and child support he already pays Heidi - and that the fee award was not actually connected to the future appellate work that still needed to be done. The trial court rejected those arguments. It also found that Conrad had acted in bad faith by refusing to pay and continuing what it described as litigation games, and on that basis awarded Heidi an additional $10,975.32 in attorney fees under a separate statute that allows fees against a party who brings claims without reasonable grounds or to harass. Conrad appealed both fee awards. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Nevada affirmed - meaning it upheld the trial court's decisions. The court explained that because Heidi asked for the fees while the appeal was still pending and before briefing was filed, the award was properly tied to future appellate work. It also concluded the trial court had adequately considered both parties' financial circumstances, including the income gap and Conrad's existing payments. As for the additional fee award, the court found there was enough evidence in the record to support the trial court's conclusion that Conrad's reconsideration motion lacked reasonable grounds and was brought in bad faith. The court also denied Heidi's request for sanctions on appeal.

Christopher Rowan and Heather Walker married in 2004, had two children, and divorced in June 2021 under a stipulated divorce decree (an agreement the divorcing spouses reach themselves that the court then adopts). Under the decree, Rowan was ordered to pay Walker both child support and alimony (ongoing payments to a former spouse). In June 2023, Rowan asked the court to lower both payments, saying his gross monthly income had dropped by more than 20 percent. Walker opposed the request. The district court denied Rowan's motion without holding a hearing. The court acknowledged that Rowan claimed a drop of more than 20 percent in his income, but concluded that his ability to earn had not actually changed and that any decrease resulted from his own voluntary decision to quit his job. The court also said that even if Rowan had shown changed circumstances, lowering child support would not be in the children's best interest, and it denied the alimony request for essentially the same reasons. While this appeal was pending, Rowan filed a second motion to modify support and alimony, claiming his income had fallen even further. The district court scheduled an evidentiary hearing (a hearing where parties present evidence) on that second motion, but said it would not revisit the earlier denial being appealed. Walker argued that the new hearing made this appeal moot - meaning there was no longer a live dispute for the court to decide. The Court of Appeals disagreed. It explained that any change resulting from the later motion would only affect payments from July 2024 forward and would not change the amounts at issue in this appeal, because payments that have already come due become fixed and cannot later be modified. So the appeal still presented a real controversy. On the merits, the Court of Appeals agreed with Rowan that the district court was required to hold a hearing once he presented preliminary evidence (a "prima facie case") that his income had dropped by more than 20 percent. Under Nevada law, a change of 20 percent or more in gross monthly income is deemed to be changed circumstances that require a review of a support or alimony order. The court emphasized that requiring a review is not the same as requiring a reduction - the judge still gets to decide, after the hearing, whether to actually change the payments. But the judge must hold the hearing first, because that is where evidence is presented and weighed, and skipping it deprived Rowan of a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Because no hearing was held, the Court of Appeals reversed the denial of both the child support and the alimony requests and sent the case back so the district court can hold an evidentiary hearing. The court also suggested that the district court could combine that hearing with the one already scheduled on Rowan's second motion, to reduce the burden on everyone, but it took no position on whether discovery would be necessary.