Willick Law Group: Appeals Appeal Appeals Oral Argu

Appeals

Willick Law Group - Las Vegas Divorce Lawyer

The WILLICK LAW GROUP maintains an active practice in appeals of domestic relations cases, and has done so for about 20 years. We sometimes appeal from, or defend appeals, in which we were trial counsel. We also accept prosecution or defense of appeals that were handled by other law firms at the trial level. We are admitted to practice in the Nevada Supreme Court, the Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court. Some of the decisions in which we prevailed on appeal are referenced below, with links to the decisions and orders, and to our briefs in those cases.

The lawyers of the Willick Law Group, and particularly Marshal Willick, are frequently asked to draft “Friend of the Court,” or Amicus, Briefs for the Nevada Supreme Court on family law topics on behalf of the State Bar of Nevada Family Law Section. We draft these briefs either alone or in conjunction with other attorneys. Some of those briefs, on a number of topics, are posted at the bottom of this page.

Since Nevada has no intermediate court of appeals, all appeals go directly from the trial court to the Nevada Supreme Court. Appeals are generally, by their nature, lengthy, expensive propositions that should not be entered into lightly. There is a "fast track" program for custody cases that is intended to speed those appeals, but even with that acceleration it is not unusual for them to take two years or longer, and cases that are not "accelerated" can and do take even longer.

An appeal can be brought from a final order (such as a Decree of Divorce) or from certain kinds of orders after final judgment, in later proceedings. Not every order can be appealed; preliminary orders are generally non-appealable, and certain kinds of post-judgment orders cannot be appealed.

A party who wishes to challenge a final order that may be appealed files a "Notice of Appeal." This is jurisdictional; in other words, if not done within a certain time limit (usually, 30 days after notice of entry of judgment) no appeal can be brought at all. Sometimes, but not always, the order being appealed from can be "stayed" during the time it is on appeal, but even where this is possible it usually requires the posting of a bond to secure the judgment, and the bond itself can be very expensive.

The next important step is the holding of an appellate settlement conference, where both parties and their attorneys appear and have one final chance to settle the case before proceeding with the appeal. This appellate settlement program is relatively new, having been implemented to take some of the crushing backlog off of the Nevada Supreme Court, and it has surprised even its proponents by just how many cases actually settle at that stage. If the case does settle, then the appeal ends, a final order is entered, and the appeal is dismissed. Still, no one can count on their case settling at the conference stage; anyone initiating an appeal should be prepared to see it through to the end.

If the appeal does not settle, then the person appealing ("Appellant") will have a limited amount of time within which to assemble an Appendix containing all relevant papers from the trial court, and submit that appendix, along with all relevant transcripts and an Opening Brief, to the Nevada Supreme Court. If there were lengthy proceedings requiring transcription, the costs just of preparing the Appendix and transcripts can be many thousands of dollars, before the attorney even starts to write the Opening Brief.

Next, the party against whom the appeal was brought ("Respondent") gets a chance to supplement the Appendix with any additional papers that party feels should have been but were not submitted, and to file a responsive brief, addressing the appellant's arguments and raising any additional arguments believed relevant, in an Answering Brief.

Finally, the Appellant gets to respond to the Answering Brief, in a final Reply Brief.

Some cases are resolved just on the Appendix and briefs. The majority go to some form of oral argument, either before a three-Justice panel of the Nevada Supreme Court in Las Vegas or Carson City, or before the entire seven-Justice Court at the same time (this is called an en banc argument). At some point after oral argument, a decision is made by the Court, rendered either in a published Opinion, or in an unpublished Order. The published opinions are collected in annual volumes, and become precedent for future legal decisions. Most decisions are not published, so of course we have participated in many appeals that did not result in published opinions.

Whether they are ultimately resolved at settlement conference, or on the briefs and appendix, or after oral argument, litigation of an appeal requires meticulous attention to detailed organization and rendition of the facts, comprehensive research into all applicable areas of law, and a thorough and scholarly legal argument.

Ultimately, litigation of appeals is a painstaking and difficult process, and it is perhaps the most challenging and technically difficult area of family law. At any given time, the Willick Law Group typically has two to six appeals pending at some stage of proceeding, and we intend to continue doing so as appropriate cases present themselves. We are proud of the record of successes we have enjoyed in the Nevada Supreme Court, and other appellate courts, both in unpublished orders, and in published decisions, including the following:

In Carlson v. Carlson, 108 Nev. 358, 832 P.2d 380 (1992), the Nevada Supreme Court reversed, at our urging, a trial court order refusing to set aside a property distribution under NRCP 60(b), where a private pension had been greatly undervalued in the original divorce proceedings. The Opinion required our client receive a fair distribution of the community property, and required entry of a QDRO so that our client received the survivorship benefits.

Carlson v. Carlson Supreme Ct. Opinion
Carlson v. Carlson Opening Brief
Carlson v. Carlson Reply Brief

In McMonigle v. McMonigle, 110 Nev. 1407, 887 P.2d 742 (1994), we obtained reversal of a decision that had taken custody of a young girl from our client, the custodial mother. The Nevada Supreme Court decision held that the moving party in a custody proceeding must show that the circumstances of the parties have materially changed "since the most recent custodial order," and events that took place before that proceeding are inadmissible to establish a change of circumstances.

McMonigle v. McMonigle Supreme Ct. Opinion
McMonicle v. McMonicle Opening Brief
McMonigle v. McMonigle Reply Brief

In Hermanson v. Hermanson, 110 Nev. 1400, 887 P.2d 1241 (1994) the Nevada Supreme Court accepted our argument that the husband, who had been named the father of the minor child by the trial court, should be removed from the child's birth certificate, overcoming difficult and technical issues dealing with equitable estoppel, paternity, presumptions, and conflicts of laws.

Hermanson v. Hermanson Supreme Ct. Opinion
Hermanson v. Hermanson Opening Brief
Hermanson v. Hermanson Reply Brief

In Waltz v. Waltz, 110 Nev. 605, 877 P.2d 501 (1994), the Nevada Supreme Court agreed with our argument that the award to the wife of "permanent alimony," as used in the parties' divorce decree, was intended to survive the wife's remarriage, where the alimony payments were, in substance, a property settlement, put into place to compensate the wife for the wife's interest in husband's military pension, which could not be directly paid to her by reason of technical military regulations.

Waltz v. Waltz Supreme Ct. Opinion
Waltz v. Waltz Opening Brief
Waltz v. Waltz Reply Brief

In Garrett v. Garrett, 111 Nev. 972, 899 P.2d 1112 (1995), the Nevada Supreme Court accepted our position and affirmed a decision that expenses of visitation incurred by the non-custodial parent as the result of the custodial parent's move from the jurisdiction can be considered by the court pursuant to NRS 125B.080(9)(i) to justify a downward deviation or an offset against the amount of child support specified by the formula.

Garrett v. Garrett Supreme Ct. Opinion
Garrett v. Garrett Answering Brief

In Dimick v. Dimick, 112 Nev. 402, 915 P.2d 254 (1996), the Nevada Supreme Court accepted our argument that the husband's signature of both spouses' names on various documents did not actually transfer any property interest to the wife, and that the trial court had an absolute duty to return to our client his premarital property.

Dimick v. Dimick Supreme Ct. Opinion
Dimick v. Dimick Opening Brief
Dimick v. Dimick Reply Brief

In Krone v. Krone, No. 27235 (ODA May 20, 1996), we successfully defended an award of arrearages for a McCarty-gap former military spouse, and prevented the opponent from shortchanging the former spouse by over-withoholding income taxes from the military retired pay.

Krone Opening Brief
Krone Reply Brief

In Epstein v. Epstein, 113 Nev. 1401, 950 P.2d 771 (1997), the Nevada Supreme Court accepted our position on a number of procedural issues, finding that negotiations between parties are sufficient to constitute an appearance under the rules, that adequate notice must be given before default is taken, and that there is no requirement in divorce litigation for a "meritorious defense" to be established before the merits of a divorce case should be considered by the trial court.

Epstein v. Epstein Supreme Ct. Opinion
Epstein v. Epstein Opening Brief
Epstein v. Epstein Reply Brief

In Williams v. Williams, No. 28364 (ODA January 23, 1998), we successfully defended the trial court's distributions of assets and debts, denial of alimony, and significant award of attorney's fees to our client who was injured by the other party's misbehavior at the time of trial.

Williams Answering Brief
Williams Supplemental Brief

In Shydler v. Shydler, 114 Nev. 192, 954 P.2d 37 (1998), the Nevada Supreme Court agreed that the lower court had committed error in denying alimony to our client, the wife in a 17-year marriage in which she had been primarily responsible for raising two children, and the husband had enjoyed a very successful career in construction.

Shydler v. Shylder Supreme Ct. Opinion
Shydler v. Shydler Opening Brief
Shydler v. Shydler Reply Brief

In Schraeder v. Schraeder, No. 28341 (ODA August 13, 1999), we successfully defended a distribution of military retirement benefits, award of survivorship benefits, alimony, and the division of property and debts we obtained at trial.

Schraeder Answering brief

In Harwood v. Harwood, No. 31775 (ODA December 20, 1999), we successfully defended the attribution of value in a corporation under the Van Camp and Pereira standards, along with various other financial issues relating to real estate, income, and marital waste claims.

Harwood Answering Brief

In Danielson v. Evans, 36 P.3d 749, 751-59 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001), the Arizona Court of Appeals relied heavily on our amicus curia brief in finding that the Uniformed Services Former Spouses Protection Act does not bar relief to the former spouse when the military member spouse takes a disability award, and thus eliminates the retirement payments to the spouse. The court upheld an order requiring the former husband to pay his former wife the difference between the value of the retirement pay as it was envisioned at the time of the divorce and the reduced amount that she actually received as a result of his waiver.

Danielson v. Evans Court of Appeals
Danielson v. Evans Amicus Curia Brief

In Vaile v. District Court, 118 Nev. 262, 44 P.3d 506 (2002), we succeeded in having the Nevada Supreme Court issue a Writ of Mandamus requiring the lower court to return the minor children to our client, in Norway, under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, and declaring that the provisions in the divorce decree adjudicating custody and visitation were entered without subject matter jurisdiction and therefore void.

Vaile v. District Court Supreme Ct. Opinion
Vaile v. District Court Petition for Writ
Vaile Federal Tort Suit Order

In Lofink v. Lofink, No. 34132 (ODA September 10, 2002), we successfully defended an award of child custody and support, lump-sum alimony, and distribution of retirement benefits and other property and debts that we had obtained upon remand and re-trial of the action.

Lofink Answering Brief

In Wichert v. Wichert, Nos. 34357 & 34357 (Order of Remand, March 19, 2003), we successfully eliminated orders granting the former spouse an interest in property not properly considered marital or community, and reversed an unwarranted monetary award.

Wichert Opening Brief
Wichert Reply Brief

In Carmona v. Carmona, No. 35851 (ODA October 21, 2003), we successfully defended the award to the surviving spouse of the survivorship benefits payable under an ERISA-governed pension plan by way of constructive trust, overcoming claims of pre-emption.

Carmona Answering Brief
Camona Supplemental Brief
Carmona: US District Court Order August 16, 2001
Carmona: Supreme Court Order October 21, 2003
Carmona: Order in Bankruptcy February 18, 2004
Carmona: US District Court Order October 25, 2004
Carmona: US District Court Order October 3, 2005
Carmona Judgment against IATSE on March 14, 2006 US District Court Order
Carmona Ninth Circut Oral Argument

In Olvera v. Olvera, No. 38233 (Order of Remand, October 29, 2003), we obtained reversal of a trial court order. The divorce decree required payments to the former spouse, who received them for many years until the member elected to receive military disability benefits, 25 years post-divorce, eliminating the spousal share. Reversing the district court, the Nevada Supreme Court ordered the member to make up all sums that his election caused to be diverted from the former spouse to him, so that our client was made whole.

Olvera Opening Brief
Olvera Reply Brief
Olvera Supplemental Brief

In Miller v. Wilfong, 121 Nev. 619, 119 P.3d 727 (2005), the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the award of attorney's fees to counsel for our client, who was represented Pro Bono, finding "the fact that a government institution or a private charity has provided legal assistance should not absolve other responsible parties of their financial obligations." Further, "To impose the burden of the cost of litigation on those who volunteer their services, when the other party has the means to pay attorney fees, would be unjust." An award of fees in a paternity case is permissible under NRS 126.171. In any award of fees in a pro bono case, the award must identify the legal basis for the award, and be supported by affidavits or other evidence that meets the factors set out in prior attorney's fees cases.

Miller v. Wilfong Nevada Supreme Court Opinion
Supreme Court Answering Brief on Wilfong

Wilfong Oral Argument (part 1)

Wilfong Oral Argument (part 2)

In Cuisenaire v. Mason, 122 Nev. 43, 128 P.3d 446 (2006), the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the award of prospective child support, and the award of retrospective child support, and remanded for resolution of the survivor's benefits issues, as we requested. Unfortunately, the opposing party died during the pendency of the case, and the Court therefore declined to address the contradiction in Nevada case law regarding partition of omitted military retirement benefits.

Cuisenaire v. Mason Nevada Supreme Court Opinion, Feb. 9, 2006
Answering Brief Cuisenaire v. Mason
Letter from DFAS re: Benefits
Order from District Court from Remand

In Simon v. McClure, No. 50740 (Order of Remand, December 16, 2009), we obtained reversal of a trial court order that had dismissed our motion to reduce child support. At our request, the Nevada Supreme Court reversed the trial court's order, and remanded for our client's motion to be able to be heard and resolved on its merits.

Simon Opening Brief
Simon Respondant Brief
Simon Reply Brief
Simon Supreme Court Order

Some of the Willick Law Group's Amicus Briefs:

Rivero State Bar Amicus Brief, May, 2009 (custody definitions, and child support in joint-but-unequal custody cases)
Motion to File Errata on Rivero
Rivero v. Rivero Opinion (after Amicus Brief) 125 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 34, August 27, 2009
Exhibits on Rivero

Hedlund Amicus Brief, December, 2008 (what to do with NRS 125.155; PERS retirement case)
Hedlund v. Hedlund, No. 48944 (Order of Reversal and Remand, September 25, 2009).

Ogawa Amicus Brief, December, 2007 (application of Hague Convention to custody case involving Japan)
Advance Opinion Ogawa v. Ogawa (After Amicus Brief)

Teuton Amicus Brief, August, 2009 (constitutional question of duration of appointment of family court judge)
Advance Opinion Lueck v. Teuton (After Amicus Brief)

	Search For: 3591 E. Bonanza Rd., Suite 200 Las Vegas, NV 89110-2101 TEL: 702-438-4100

Appeals Willick Law Group - Las Vegas Divorce Lawyer Name: Email: The WILLICK LAW GROUP maintains an active practice in appeals of domestic relations cases, and has done so for about 20 years. We sometimes appeal from, or defend appeals, in which we were trial counsel. We also accept prosecution or defense of appeals that were handled by other law firms at the trial level. We are admitted to practice in the Nevada Supreme Court, the Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court. Some of the decisions in which we prevailed on appeal are referenced below, with links to the decisions and orders, and to our briefs in those cases. The lawyers of the Willick Law Group, and particularly Marshal Willick, are frequently asked to draft “Friend of the Court,” or Amicus, Briefs for the Nevada Supreme Court on family law topics on behalf of the State Bar of Nevada Family Law Section. We draft these briefs either alone or in conjunction with other attorneys. Some of those briefs, on a number of topics, are posted at the bottom of this page. Since Nevada has no intermediate court of appeals, all appeals go directly from the trial court to the Nevada Supreme Court. Appeals are generally, by their nature, lengthy, expensive propositions that should not be entered into lightly. There is a "fast track" program for custody cases that is intended to speed those appeals, but even with that acceleration it is not unusual for them to take two years or longer, and cases that are not "accelerated" can and do take even longer. An appeal can be brought from a final order (such as a Decree of Divorce) or from certain kinds of orders after final judgment, in later proceedings. Not every order can be appealed; preliminary orders are generally non-appealable, and certain kinds of post-judgment orders cannot be appealed. A party who wishes to challenge a final order that may be appealed files a "Notice of Appeal." This is jurisdictional; in other words, if not done within a certain time limit (usually, 30 days after notice of entry of judgment) no appeal can be brought at all. Sometimes, but not always, the order being appealed from can be "stayed" during the time it is on appeal, but even where this is possible it usually requires the posting of a bond to secure the judgment, and the bond itself can be very expensive. The next important step is the holding of an appellate settlement conference, where both parties and their attorneys appear and have one final chance to settle the case before proceeding with the appeal. This appellate settlement program is relatively new, having been implemented to take some of the crushing backlog off of the Nevada Supreme Court, and it has surprised even its proponents by just how many cases actually settle at that stage. If the case does settle, then the appeal ends, a final order is entered, and the appeal is dismissed. Still, no one can count on their case settling at the conference stage; anyone initiating an appeal should be prepared to see it through to the end. If the appeal does not settle, then the person appealing ("Appellant") will have a limited amount of time within which to assemble an Appendix containing all relevant papers from the trial court, and submit that appendix, along with all relevant transcripts and an Opening Brief, to the Nevada Supreme Court. If there were lengthy proceedings requiring transcription, the costs just of preparing the Appendix and transcripts can be many thousands of dollars, before the attorney even starts to write the Opening Brief. Next, the party against whom the appeal was brought ("Respondent") gets a chance to supplement the Appendix with any additional papers that party feels should have been but were not submitted, and to file a responsive brief, addressing the appellant's arguments and raising any additional arguments believed relevant, in an Answering Brief. Finally, the Appellant gets to respond to the Answering Brief, in a final Reply Brief. Some cases are resolved just on the Appendix and briefs. The majority go to some form of oral argument, either before a three-Justice panel of the Nevada Supreme Court in Las Vegas or Carson City, or before the entire seven-Justice Court at the same time (this is called an en banc argument). At some point after oral argument, a decision is made by the Court, rendered either in a published Opinion, or in an unpublished Order. The published opinions are collected in annual volumes, and become precedent for future legal decisions. Most decisions are not published, so of course we have participated in many appeals that did not result in published opinions. Whether they are ultimately resolved at settlement conference, or on the briefs and appendix, or after oral argument, litigation of an appeal requires meticulous attention to detailed organization and rendition of the facts, comprehensive research into all applicable areas of law, and a thorough and scholarly legal argument. Ultimately, litigation of appeals is a painstaking and difficult process, and it is perhaps the most challenging and technically difficult area of family law. At any given time, the Willick Law Group typically has two to six appeals pending at some stage of proceeding, and we intend to continue doing so as appropriate cases present themselves. We are proud of the record of successes we have enjoyed in the Nevada Supreme Court, and other appellate courts, both in unpublished orders, and in published decisions, including the following: In Carlson v. Carlson, 108 Nev. 358, 832 P.2d 380 (1992), the Nevada Supreme Court reversed, at our urging, a trial court order refusing to set aside a property distribution under NRCP 60(b), where a private pension had been greatly undervalued in the original divorce proceedings. The Opinion required our client receive a fair distribution of the community property, and required entry of a QDRO so that our client received the survivorship benefits. Carlson v. Carlson Supreme Ct. Opinion Carlson v. Carlson Opening Brief Carlson v. Carlson Reply Brief In McMonigle v. McMonigle, 110 Nev. 1407, 887 P.2d 742 (1994), we obtained reversal of a decision that had taken custody of a young girl from our client, the custodial mother. The Nevada Supreme Court decision held that the moving party in a custody proceeding must show that the circumstances of the parties have materially changed "since the most recent custodial order," and events that took place before that proceeding are inadmissible to establish a change of circumstances. McMonigle v. McMonigle Supreme Ct. Opinion McMonicle v. McMonicle Opening Brief McMonigle v. McMonigle Reply Brief In Hermanson v. Hermanson, 110 Nev. 1400, 887 P.2d 1241 (1994) the Nevada Supreme Court accepted our argument that the husband, who had been named the father of the minor child by the trial court, should be removed from the child's birth certificate, overcoming difficult and technical issues dealing with equitable estoppel, paternity, presumptions, and conflicts of laws. Hermanson v. Hermanson Supreme Ct. Opinion Hermanson v. Hermanson Opening Brief Hermanson v. Hermanson Reply Brief In Waltz v. Waltz, 110 Nev. 605, 877 P.2d 501 (1994), the Nevada Supreme Court agreed with our argument that the award to the wife of "permanent alimony," as used in the parties' divorce decree, was intended to survive the wife's remarriage, where the alimony payments were, in substance, a property settlement, put into place to compensate the wife for the wife's interest in husband's military pension, which could not be directly paid to her by reason of technical military regulations. Waltz v. Waltz Supreme Ct. Opinion Waltz v. Waltz Opening Brief Waltz v. Waltz Reply Brief In Garrett v. Garrett, 111 Nev. 972, 899 P.2d 1112 (1995), the Nevada Supreme Court accepted our position and affirmed a decision that expenses of visitation incurred by the non-custodial parent as the result of the custodial parent's move from the jurisdiction can be considered by the court pursuant to NRS 125B.080(9)(i) to justify a downward deviation or an offset against the amount of child support specified by the formula. Garrett v. Garrett Supreme Ct. Opinion Garrett v. Garrett Answering Brief In Dimick v. Dimick, 112 Nev. 402, 915 P.2d 254 (1996), the Nevada Supreme Court accepted our argument that the husband's signature of both spouses' names on various documents did not actually transfer any property interest to the wife, and that the trial court had an absolute duty to return to our client his premarital property. Dimick v. Dimick Supreme Ct. Opinion Dimick v. Dimick Opening Brief Dimick v. Dimick Reply Brief In Krone v. Krone, No. 27235 (ODA May 20, 1996), we successfully defended an award of arrearages for a McCarty-gap former military spouse, and prevented the opponent from shortchanging the former spouse by over-withoholding income taxes from the military retired pay. Krone Opening Brief Krone Reply Brief In Epstein v. Epstein, 113 Nev. 1401, 950 P.2d 771 (1997), the Nevada Supreme Court accepted our position on a number of procedural issues, finding that negotiations between parties are sufficient to constitute an appearance under the rules, that adequate notice must be given before default is taken, and that there is no requirement in divorce litigation for a "meritorious defense" to be established before the merits of a divorce case should be considered by the trial court. Epstein v. Epstein Supreme Ct. Opinion Epstein v. Epstein Opening Brief Epstein v. Epstein Reply Brief In Williams v. Williams, No. 28364 (ODA January 23, 1998), we successfully defended the trial court's distributions of assets and debts, denial of alimony, and significant award of attorney's fees to our client who was injured by the other party's misbehavior at the time of trial. Williams Answering Brief Williams Supplemental Brief In Shydler v. Shydler, 114 Nev. 192, 954 P.2d 37 (1998), the Nevada Supreme Court agreed that the lower court had committed error in denying alimony to our client, the wife in a 17-year marriage in which she had been primarily responsible for raising two children, and the husband had enjoyed a very successful career in construction. Shydler v. Shylder Supreme Ct. Opinion Shydler v. Shydler Opening Brief Shydler v. Shydler Reply Brief In Schraeder v. Schraeder, No. 28341 (ODA August 13, 1999), we successfully defended a distribution of military retirement benefits, award of survivorship benefits, alimony, and the division of property and debts we obtained at trial. Schraeder Answering brief In Harwood v. Harwood, No. 31775 (ODA December 20, 1999), we successfully defended the attribution of value in a corporation under the Van Camp and Pereira standards, along with various other financial issues relating to real estate, income, and marital waste claims. Harwood Answering Brief In Danielson v. Evans, 36 P.3d 749, 751-59 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001), the Arizona Court of Appeals relied heavily on our amicus curia brief in finding that the Uniformed Services Former Spouses Protection Act does not bar relief to the former spouse when the military member spouse takes a disability award, and thus eliminates the retirement payments to the spouse. The court upheld an order requiring the former husband to pay his former wife the difference between the value of the retirement pay as it was envisioned at the time of the divorce and the reduced amount that she actually received as a result of his waiver. Danielson v. Evans Court of Appeals Danielson v. Evans Amicus Curia Brief In Vaile v. District Court, 118 Nev. 262, 44 P.3d 506 (2002), we succeeded in having the Nevada Supreme Court issue a Writ of Mandamus requiring the lower court to return the minor children to our client, in Norway, under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, and declaring that the provisions in the divorce decree adjudicating custody and visitation were entered without subject matter jurisdiction and therefore void. Vaile v. District Court Supreme Ct. Opinion Vaile v. District Court Petition for Writ Vaile Federal Tort Suit Order In Lofink v. Lofink, No. 34132 (ODA September 10, 2002), we successfully defended an award of child custody and support, lump-sum alimony, and distribution of retirement benefits and other property and debts that we had obtained upon remand and re-trial of the action. Lofink Answering Brief In Wichert v. Wichert, Nos. 34357 & 34357 (Order of Remand, March 19, 2003), we successfully eliminated orders granting the former spouse an interest in property not properly considered marital or community, and reversed an unwarranted monetary award. Wichert Opening Brief Wichert Reply Brief In Carmona v. Carmona, No. 35851 (ODA October 21, 2003), we successfully defended the award to the surviving spouse of the survivorship benefits payable under an ERISA-governed pension plan by way of constructive trust, overcoming claims of pre-emption. Carmona Answering Brief Camona Supplemental Brief Carmona: US District Court Order August 16, 2001 Carmona: Supreme Court Order October 21, 2003 Carmona: Order in Bankruptcy February 18, 2004 Carmona: US District Court Order October 25, 2004 Carmona: US District Court Order October 3, 2005 Carmona Judgment against IATSE on March 14, 2006 US District Court Order Carmona Ninth Circut Oral Argument In Olvera v. Olvera, No. 38233 (Order of Remand, October 29, 2003), we obtained reversal of a trial court order. The divorce decree required payments to the former spouse, who received them for many years until the member elected to receive military disability benefits, 25 years post-divorce, eliminating the spousal share. Reversing the district court, the Nevada Supreme Court ordered the member to make up all sums that his election caused to be diverted from the former spouse to him, so that our client was made whole. Olvera Opening Brief Olvera Reply Brief Olvera Supplemental Brief In Miller v. Wilfong, 121 Nev. 619, 119 P.3d 727 (2005), the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the award of attorney's fees to counsel for our client, who was represented Pro Bono, finding "the fact that a government institution or a private charity has provided legal assistance should not absolve other responsible parties of their financial obligations." Further, "To impose the burden of the cost of litigation on those who volunteer their services, when the other party has the means to pay attorney fees, would be unjust." An award of fees in a paternity case is permissible under NRS 126.171. In any award of fees in a pro bono case, the award must identify the legal basis for the award, and be supported by affidavits or other evidence that meets the factors set out in prior attorney's fees cases. Miller v. Wilfong Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Supreme Court Answering Brief on Wilfong Wilfong Oral Argument (part 1) Wilfong Oral Argument (part 2) In Cuisenaire v. Mason, 122 Nev. 43, 128 P.3d 446 (2006), the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the award of prospective child support, and the award of retrospective child support, and remanded for resolution of the survivor's benefits issues, as we requested. Unfortunately, the opposing party died during the pendency of the case, and the Court therefore declined to address the contradiction in Nevada case law regarding partition of omitted military retirement benefits. Cuisenaire v. Mason Nevada Supreme Court Opinion, Feb. 9, 2006 Answering Brief Cuisenaire v. Mason Letter from DFAS re: Benefits Order from District Court from Remand In Simon v. McClure, No. 50740 (Order of Remand, December 16, 2009), we obtained reversal of a trial court order that had dismissed our motion to reduce child support. At our request, the Nevada Supreme Court reversed the trial court's order, and remanded for our client's motion to be able to be heard and resolved on its merits. Simon Opening Brief Simon Respondant Brief Simon Reply Brief Simon Supreme Court Order Some of the Willick Law Group's Amicus Briefs: Rivero State Bar Amicus Brief, May, 2009 (custody definitions, and child support in joint-but-unequal custody cases) Motion to File Errata on Rivero Rivero v. Rivero Opinion (after Amicus Brief) 125 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 34, August 27, 2009 Exhibits on Rivero Hedlund Amicus Brief, December, 2008 (what to do with NRS 125.155; PERS retirement case) Hedlund v. Hedlund, No. 48944 (Order of Reversal and Remand, September 25, 2009). Ogawa Amicus Brief, December, 2007 (application of Hague Convention to custody case involving Japan) Advance Opinion Ogawa v. Ogawa (After Amicus Brief) Teuton Amicus Brief, August, 2009 (constitutional question of duration of appointment of family court judge) Advance Opinion Lueck v. Teuton (After Amicus Brief)