Nevada family-law case summaries

Amr and Huriyeh Hosny married in 1989 in Macau and moved to the United States in 2004, where they ran businesses and held assets together. They separated in 2018, and Huriyeh filed for divorce. After a 2020 trial, the family court entered a divorce decree that, among other things, ordered Amr to pay Huriyeh $5,000 per month in lifetime alimony (ongoing financial support), reimburse her $6,000 for an expert witness, pay a $38,000 loan Huriyeh had taken from her sister (in part to cover her attorney and expert fees), and pay off a U.S. Bank credit card. Amr appealed. The Court of Appeals found several problems with how the trial court reached its decisions. On alimony, the appeals court concluded that the trial court's factual findings were "contradictory, unclear, and not supported by substantial evidence." The trial court noted that Amr's income was $120,000 in 2017 but had dropped to $72,000 by 2019, yet it never settled on which income figure it actually used to set the alimony amount. The appeals court said the trial court appeared to assume Amr could keep earning what he historically had, without accounting for the downturn in his business tied in part to the COVID-19 pandemic. The trial court also divided rental properties between the spouses, which means Amr will collect less rental income going forward — a fact the appeals court said the trial court did not properly factor in when deciding how much support Amr could afford to pay or how much Huriyeh actually needed. The appeals court also identified erroneous findings about how much Amr paid to support the couple's adult children and how much he was already paying Huriyeh during the case. On the demonstrative exhibits (exhibits 5 and 14, which were charts or summaries the trial court relied on), the appeals court held it was error to admit them because the expert who apparently prepared them never testified to establish the foundation for the financial information they contained. The exhibits also contained mathematical errors and information inconsistent with other admitted evidence. Because the trial court leaned on these flawed exhibits in setting alimony and dividing debts, the appeals court found the error prejudicial. On the $6,000 in expert witness fees, the appeals court explained that under Nevada law, an expert generally must testify in order to recover more than $1,500 in fees. Because this expert did not testify, the trial court abused its discretion in awarding fees above that threshold. The appeals court reversed the district court's judgment and sent the case back for further proceedings consistent with its order. On remand, the trial court will need to reassess the full division of community property and debt (including the promissory note, the Bank of America card, and the U.S. Bank card) when deciding alimony, and ensure Huriyeh does not receive a "double recovery" for fees and costs already covered through debts assigned to Amr.

Bart and Bonnie Mahoney married in 2000 and had two children. When Bart filed for divorce in 2016, the couple reached an agreement that was merged into the divorce decree. Under the decree, Bonnie received primary physical custody of the children, and Bart agreed to pay child support, cover the children on his medical insurance, pay monthly alimony for five years, pay Bonnie 25% of his annual bonuses (rising to 35% if he failed to give her his annual W-2 tax forms), and pay her attorney fees and costs from the divorce. According to the opinion, Bart did not pay the child support, alimony, or attorney fees, did not pay Bonnie a share of his bonuses, and did not provide his W-2 forms. In May 2019, Bonnie asked the district court to reduce the arrearages (the unpaid amounts) to a judgment—that is, to convert what Bart owed into an enforceable court judgment—with interest and penalties, and to review child support and award her attorney fees. The case wound its way through several hearings. Bart's attorney withdrew in 2020 because Bart had never formally retained him and had stopped communicating. After that, Bart represented himself. The evidentiary hearing was rescheduled several times and ultimately set for December 3, 2020. Notice of that hearing was mailed to Bart's last-known address on file with the court, and Bonnie's attorney also emailed Bart pretrial filings—containing the hearing's date and time—at the same email address Bart had previously used to correspond with that attorney. Bart did not show up at the December 3, 2020, hearing. The district court proceeded with only Bonnie and her attorney present, took evidence including Bart's income and bonus records obtained by subpoena, and granted Bonnie's motion. It found Bart owed child support, alimony, and attorney fees and costs from the divorce, and—because Bart never provided his W-2 forms—awarded Bonnie 35% of his bonuses. It also awarded Bonnie the attorney fees and costs of bringing the motion, setting the amount in January 2021 after Bonnie filed a detailed memorandum of her fees and costs. Bart then moved to set aside the orders under NRCP 60(b), claiming he was never notified of the hearing, but filed his notice of appeal before the district court ruled on that motion. The appeal was still properly before the Court of Appeals under NRAP 4(a)(6), which treats the premature notice as filed on the date the district court denied the set-aside motion. However, because Bart's briefs did not address the denial of that motion, any challenge to it was waived. On appeal, the Court of Appeals rejected all three of Bart's arguments. First, it held that substantial evidence supported the finding that Bart was properly notified of the hearing: notice was mailed to his last-known address (which under the court rules completes service upon mailing), and he also had actual notice via emails from Bonnie's attorney. Bart pointed to nothing in the record—such as a sworn affidavit—showing he did not actually receive notice, and the onus was on him to keep the court updated with his address. Second, the court held that Bart's challenges to the arrearage findings were waived because he never raised those specific arguments in the district court, despite multiple opportunities to do so. Third, the court held that the fee award was not an abuse of discretion: the award was authorized by statute, and the district court made detailed findings under the four-factor test from Brunzell v. Golden Gate Nat'l Bank for evaluating the reasonableness of attorney fees.

Kirk and Vivian Harrison divorced and agreed to share legal and physical custody of their two minor children. Their written agreement, which the district court adopted, included two unusual provisions. First, once a child turned 14, the child would have "teenage discretion" to choose how much time to spend with each parent. Second, the parties would use a "parenting coordinator" - a neutral outside person - to help resolve disputes about parenting issues. When the older daughter turned 14, conflict erupted over what "teenage discretion" actually meant. Vivian read it to mean the children could decide where to be and the parents had to honor that. Kirk read it to mean the children could only request changes that either parent could refuse. Kirk said he was kept from seeing his daughter for two weeks because of Vivian's reading. The parents also could not agree on a parenting coordinator, so Vivian asked the court to appoint one. The district court appointed a parenting coordinator and clarified that the coordinator could resolve nonsubstantive disputes (like scheduling) and make recommendations; if a parent objected, the parent could seek court review. Kirk then asked the district court to modify the original agreement, arguing both provisions were against public policy. The district court refused, and Kirk appealed. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed. As to teenage discretion, the majority held the provision did not violate the children's best interests because it allowed only limited, week-to-week schedule flexibility - not the ability to dismantle the joint custody arrangement the parents had agreed to. The court emphasized that parents have a fundamental liberty interest in raising their children, and small scheduling adjustments do not rise to the level of harm that would justify court interference. The court declined Kirk's alternative request to rewrite the provision so that either parent could veto the child's choice, explaining that courts do not redraft agreements the parties did not make. As to the parenting coordinator, the court held the provision served the children's best interests in this contentious case by providing a faster, less formal way to resolve everyday disputes like sick days, school cancellations, and extracurricular scheduling. The court also rejected Kirk's argument that appointing a parenting coordinator improperly handed off the judge's decision-making authority. The coordinator's role was limited to nonsubstantive matters, the coordinator could not change the underlying custody arrangement, and either parent could ask the district court to review a recommendation. Because the parties had voluntarily agreed to use a coordinator and the court retained final authority, the arrangement did not violate due process. Three justices dissented. They would have invalidated both provisions, arguing that custody decisions belong to the district court and cannot be delegated to children or to a non-judicial coordinator without sufficient judicial review.

Hony Fernandez and Jennifer Fernandez (now known as Jennifer Rothman) divorced in 1998 after a brief marriage that produced two children. Both worked in the securities industry. The original divorce decree required the father to pay $3,000 per month in child support, plus health insurance, uncovered medical expenses, a housekeeper, and a nanny or day care. In 1999, the parties agreed to raise support to $4,000 per month (effective 2001) and to add private-school tuition. In 2000, after a failed reconciliation, they entered a third stipulation giving both parents joint physical custody — and in that stipulation, both parents "voluntarily waive[d] any right they may have pursuant to Chapter 125B of the Nevada Revised Statutes" to seek modification of the father's child support obligation. By 2007, according to the father's motion, his fortunes had reversed dramatically. He had once earned between $500,000 and more than $4,000,000 a year trading securities, but heavy market losses beginning in 2002 left him earning $3,000 a month selling cars, plus a similar amount in interest — while his child support obligations totaled roughly $80,000 a year. The mother, meanwhile, had remarried; her household income equaled or exceeded his, and the two had comparable net worth. The trial court itself found that if it applied the statutory child support formula to the parties' current incomes, "neither party would be obligated to pay child support to the other." Even so, it refused to modify the order, relying on the parties' waiver and on the fact that the father could still pay from his remaining assets. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed. It held that parents cannot, by agreement, strip a court of its statutory power to review and modify child support. Once a support agreement is incorporated into a divorce decree, it becomes a court order, not just a private contract, and Nevada's statutes provide for its periodic review and modification — up or down — as circumstances change. Quoting a California decision, the court concluded that "the court always has the power to modify a child support order, upward or downward, regardless of the parents' agreement to the contrary." The court also rejected the trial court's approach of requiring the father to draw down his assets before modification could be considered, and it rejected the mother's argument that her partial performance of the agreement barred the father from challenging it. One limit remained for the father, however. Under the court's recent decision in Rivero v. Rivero, the mere fact that more than three years had passed since the last review entitled him to a review, but not automatically to a modification: on remand, he must still demonstrate changed circumstances. The court noted that his alleged income drop — more than 80 percent — appears to satisfy the statutory trigger, under which a change of 20 percent or more in the support obligor's gross monthly income is deemed a changed circumstance requiring review for modification.