Nevada family-law case summaries

This case arose from a divorce and child custody dispute. Frank Luciano started the divorce and custody proceedings in October 2019. Amy filed an answer, and the case moved forward. In December 2019, the court held a case management conference and set a "calendar call" (a scheduling check-in) for May 5, 2020, and a trial for May 19, 2020. Both parties were told these dates in open court. Amy did not appear at the calendar call. The court kept the case on the calendar for the trial date to give her another chance to present evidence. Amy also did not appear at the May 19 trial. The court then took evidence from Frank and, in June 2020, entered a final divorce decree awarding Frank sole legal and sole physical custody of the couple's child, with Amy's parenting time left to Frank's discretion. The court noted that if Amy brought the matter back, it would consider evidence to re-establish contact between her and the child. In July 2020, Amy filed a motion to set aside the decree under NRCP 60(b) (a rule allowing a court to undo a judgment in certain circumstances). She claimed she had not been served with court papers, that the decree resulted from fraud or misconduct, that Frank had committed domestic violence against her, and other allegations. The court held a hearing and, in December 2020, denied the motion, finding she had received written notice of the hearing and trial dates in open court and had not shown a basis to set aside the decree. The court again said it would consider modifying custody and support if she filed an appropriate motion. In May 2021, Amy filed a second NRCP 60(b) motion to set aside several prior orders, repeating similar arguments. The court denied it, finding she had not provided proof that she served the motion on Frank and that it had already considered the same arguments in her first motion. She then appealed. The appellate court first found it lacked jurisdiction over the part of the appeal challenging the divorce decree itself. A notice of appeal generally must be filed within 30 days after the notice of entry of the order being appealed. The notice of entry of the divorce decree was served on June 8, 2020, but Amy did not file her notice of appeal until September 17, 2021 - far too late. Her NRCP 60(b) motions were not filed in time to pause ("toll") the appeal deadline. Because the appeal was late as to the decree, the court dismissed that portion. As to the two orders denying NRCP 60(b) relief, the court affirmed. It explained that district courts have broad discretion over custody decisions and over motions to set aside judgments, and that these decisions are reviewed only for "abuse of discretion." The court found that Amy did not offer cogent argument or relevant authority supporting her claims. It noted that while a court must make specific best-interest findings, including on domestic violence, when making a custody determination, Amy's arguments really challenged the underlying custody decision in the decree - which was not timely appealed - and she cited no authority requiring such findings when deciding an NRCP 60(b) motion. The record showed she was served with the summons, complaint, and the relevant orders, undercutting her fraud and lack-of-service arguments. On the second motion, the court explained that it was denied in part because Amy failed to serve it on Frank, and because Amy did not challenge that specific finding on appeal, the court affirmed on that basis. Finally, the court rejected the claim that custody was awarded as punishment, noting the record showed the court took evidence at trial before making its custody decision rather than entering a default without a hearing.