Nevada family-law case summaries

Jay and Debra Grybowski were married for 26 years. During the marriage, Jay was the primary wage earner while Debra was out of the work force for over 18 years due to a medical illness. In 2014, Debra filed for divorce, and the district court entered a decree of divorce in December 2016. The divorce decree and later orders created several financial obligations for Jay. Among them: $1,800 per month in alimony, half of the community property share of funds from Jay's wrongful termination settlement with Hewlett Packard (HP), an equalization payment of $114,740.59 (partly to offset a finding of "marital waste"), and three separate attorney-fees judgments. Two of those attorney-fees judgments each required $1,000 per month in payments. Over the following years, the case moved through multiple judges and several rounds of proceedings, including a finding in 2018 that Jay was in contempt for willfully failing to pay alimony and attorney fees during three months in 2017, even though the court found he had the ability to pay. A key dispute arose over exactly how much Jay owed each month. A February 2020 order stated that Jay should pay a total of $2,800 per month ($1,800 alimony plus $1,000 toward attorney fees). Debra asked the court to reconsider, arguing this was a computation error that accidentally changed prior orders, which had actually required $1,800 in alimony plus $2,000 in attorney-fee payments (two separate $1,000 obligations). After Judge Nadin Cutter took over the case and held an evidentiary hearing, the court concluded in August 2022 that the $2,800 figure was a clerical error and that the correct total was $3,800 per month. The court also determined that Jay owed a large outstanding balance and set up a plan requiring him to pay $10,000 per year for 13 years to satisfy three additional judgments (Debra's HP settlement share, the equalization payment, and the third attorney-fees judgment). The court found Jay had the financial ability to make these payments. In weighing the evidence, the court found Debra more credible because she provided more proof of payments than Jay did. Jay asked the court to reconsider that August 2022 decision, and the court denied his request in December 2022, confirming the $3,800 monthly amount. Jay then appealed. On appeal, the Court of Appeals rejected Jay's arguments. The court explained that there is a difference between "modifying" a divorce order (changing the parties' substantive rights, which a court generally cannot do to a divorce decree except as allowed by rule or statute) and "clarifying" or enforcing an order (defining rights already awarded, which a court retains inherent authority to do). The court concluded the district court had merely clarified and enforced the existing judgments, not modified them. It also held the district court had discretion to set up a payment schedule, that the record supported the $3,800 monthly figure, and that it would not reweigh the district court's factual findings or its assessment of which party was more credible. The court therefore affirmed. It also declined to sanction Jay, because it did not appear his appeal was brought solely to cause delay.

Cheryl Slader and Cory Colley married in 2007 and have one child. Cory filed for divorce in 2019, and after a trial on custody issues, the district court entered a divorce decree in June 2022 that gave both parents joint legal custody but gave Cory primary physical custody, with parenting time for Cheryl. The decree left some things unfinished - the holiday and parenting-time schedule, and the division of the couple's property and debts. Cheryl tried to appeal that decree right away, but the Nevada Supreme Court dismissed the appeal because the decree was not a "final" order that could be appealed. In July 2023, a different district judge entered an order finishing the custody scheduling issues, and Cheryl appealed again. The Court of Appeals first sorted out what it could and could not review. Because the property-and-debt issues still had not been resolved, there was no final judgment in the case, so the court dismissed the parts of Cheryl's appeal that challenged the bifurcation (splitting) of the trial and the alimony and child support decisions - it had no jurisdiction over those. But a court rule, NRAP 3A(b)(7), allows an appeal from an order that "finally establishes or alters the custody of minor children," so the court could review the custody rulings. The court also declined Cheryl's request to convert the appeal into a petition for a writ of prohibition (an extraordinary court order directed at a lower court), because she cited no supporting authority and because she could already appeal the custody order. On the merits, the court repeatedly ran into a problem with the appellate record - the set of documents an appellant must give the appeals court. Cheryl did not include the district court's discovery or pretrial orders, her answer and counterclaim, her pretrial memorandum, or the trial exhibits. Under Nevada law, when an appellant leaves out documents the appeals court needs, the court presumes the missing documents support the lower court's decision. That presumption defeated her arguments about discovery time, the three-hour trial limit, and much of her evidence-based challenge to the custody ruling. On the custody decision itself, the district court had weighed the statutory "best interest of the child" factors and found most of them equal or inapplicable, but concluded that the nature of the child's relationship with each parent "is the tiebreaker" - the child reported feeling comforted and validated with his father and found his mother "argumentative and unrelenting." Cheryl also argued that Cory had committed domestic violence, which under Nevada law can create a presumption against awarding custody to that parent - but only if proved by clear and convincing evidence after an evidentiary hearing. The district court found her evidence (video without audio that did not show the alleged incident, a notarized letter, and a couples' therapist's testimony about an aggressive outburst in a counseling session) did not meet that standard. The Court of Appeals held that, on the limited record before it, substantial evidence supported those findings, and it would not reweigh evidence or credibility on appeal. Finally, Cheryl argued the district court had to make an express finding under NRS 125C.003(1)(a) that she was unable to care for the child at least 146 days per year before awarding primary physical custody to Cory. The Court of Appeals disagreed, explaining that the statute does not require such a finding and that the sole consideration in a custody determination is the child's best interest. The court affirmed the custody determination.