Nevada family-law case summaries

Lisa and Thomas Gibson divorced in 2003 and then spent roughly two decades fighting in state and federal courts over money Thomas owed Lisa. By 2015, a Nevada district court had consolidated earlier judgments and determined Thomas owed Lisa about $275,000. Before that 2015 judgment was entered, Thomas filed for bankruptcy. Under his repayment plan he paid $2,200 a month for about two years, and roughly $44,000 accumulated for anticipated payments to creditors. His bankruptcy case was later converted from a Chapter 13 (a repayment plan) to a Chapter 7 (a liquidation). Lisa and Thomas then fought over who owned that $44,000. In 2017, the bankruptcy court ordered the money deposited with the Office of the Ex-Officio Constable and allowed Lisa to pursue a writ of garnishment (a court order that lets a creditor collect money held by a third party) against the trustee. Lisa tried to collect the money using writs of garnishment and execution, but multiple delays got in the way — including her own collection attorney filing a lien for attorney fees against the funds. In June 2021, the 2015 judgment expired because Lisa did not file a required renewal affidavit in time. The Nevada Supreme Court upheld that finding of expiration in a 2023 order. Because the judgment had expired, Lisa's attorney filed an interpleader action — a lawsuit that asks a court to decide who among competing claimants actually owns disputed funds. In 2023, the district court concluded Thomas was entitled to the $44,000 because Lisa no longer had a valid judgment to collect on, and ordered the money paid to him. Lisa appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed. It rejected Lisa's argument that the 2017 bankruptcy order had already decided who owned the money. The court explained that the bankruptcy order only let Lisa file a writ of garnishment; it did not award her the money outright. The later dispute over ownership involved a new situation that arose only after the Nevada Supreme Court confirmed the 2015 judgment had expired — something that could not have been decided back in 2017. The court also rejected Lisa's argument that her 2017 collection efforts extended the life of the judgment. It noted that the Nevada Supreme Court had already decided in the 2023 order that Lisa's collection efforts between 2015 and 2021 did not restart the limitations period, so that question could not be relitigated. The court added that Lisa cited no authority actually supporting the idea that a writ of garnishment extends a judgment's deadline. Finally, because Lisa had no right to the funds, the court found her remaining arguments — about a motion for exemption and about her former attorney's claim to the money — to be moot (no longer presenting a live dispute) and did not address them.