Nevada family-law case summaries

Allison Schmidt and Erland Alan Fay married in 2019 and have one child. In 2022, Schmidt filed for divorce and asked for things like back child support, reimbursement for the child's health insurance premiums, and costs tied to her pregnancy. The case went to trial, but partway through, the two sides began settling their disputes by stating their agreement out loud "on the record" (meaning the terms were spoken in court and captured in the transcript). Schmidt said she was satisfied with most of the agreement on custody and child support, but at first did not want to give up two claims: reimbursement for her in vitro fertilization (IVF) expenses and past child support for periods when she cared for the child while the couple lived apart. The judge noted the parties were "stuck" and asked Schmidt to decide how she wanted to proceed. Fay then proposed a solution: he said Schmidt had loaned him $6,000 and he had repaid $4,500, and he offered to pay an additional $2,000. When the judge asked if $2,000 would "resolve it," Schmidt agreed. The judge described the $2,000 as a "settlement payment to resolve any other outstanding claims," and Schmidt responded, "[t]hat sounds good." When asked whether she fully agreed with the terms placed on the record, she said "Yes." The district court then wrote up a divorce decree based on that spoken agreement. The decree said Fay would pay Schmidt $2,000, which would serve as "full and final settlement of all past claims for child support arrears, labor/delivery charges, etc." Schmidt later changed course. She asked the court for relief from the decree, requesting a new trial on the financial issues and that the decree be corrected to match what she believed was actually agreed. Separately, several months after the decree, she received a Facebook friend request from the judge. On advice from the State Bar, she disclosed the friend request to Fay and tried to hire a lawyer for the upcoming hearing but could not find one on short notice. She asked the court to delay the hearing so she could obtain counsel. The court denied that emergency request and, after a hearing, also denied her motion for a new trial. On appeal, the Court of Appeals examined the trial transcript and concluded there was solid evidence that Schmidt had agreed the $2,000 payment resolved all of her remaining financial claims and that the decree accurately reflected that agreement. The court noted she never objected when the judge stated the payment would settle the outstanding claims, and she confirmed she was in full agreement. The court also rejected her argument about being denied a delay to hire a lawyer, finding she did not show she was harmed or that the result would have been different — particularly because the friend request happened months after the decree was already entered. To the extent she suggested the judge was biased, the court found she did not show the alleged bias came from outside the case or reflected the kind of deep hostility that would prevent a fair judgment. The court affirmed.