1. Backman v. Gelbman, No. 88482-COA & No. 91070-COA, Order of Affirmance (Unpublished Disposition, June 16, 2026)
Hope Backman and Daniel Gelbman share one child (D.G., born 2013) and, after a 2018 order, exercised joint legal custody with a weekly alternating physical schedule. In 2023, Backman moved to modify custody and relocate with D.G. to Texas, citing financial hardship and family support. Gelbman opposed, cross-moved for primary physical custody, and obtained a stipulated designation of Backman as a vexatious litigant with a prefiling-review requirement. A court-appointed evaluator produced reports, temporary orders gave Gelbman primary physical custody, and after a multi-day hearing, the District Court (Cynthia Lu) denied relocation and awarded Gelbman primary physical custody with final decision-making authority over education and medical/mental-health care, while maintaining joint legal custody. When Backman later filed an emergency motion alleging Gelbman’s fiancée injured D.G., the court found the injury accidental, denied the motion, and awarded Gelbman $2,000 in attorney fees; Backman’s two appeals were consolidated.
Backman raised seven challenges across both orders: 1) that the court modified custody without expressly finding a substantial change in circumstances; 2) that it failed to seriously consider a parenting coordinator as a less-restrictive alternative; 3) that it effectively awarded sole legal custody while calling it joint; 4) that it relied on a biased, unreliable custody evaluator; 5) that it improperly considered her vexatious-litigant status and enforced the stipulation against her counsel; 6) that it improperly awarded attorney fees under the statute; 7) that it relied on imputed income from a separate child-support matter in assessing her ability to pay.
In Nevada, custody decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion and factual findings are upheld if supported by substantial evidence, with credibility and weight left to the trial court, though deference does not extend to legal error or conclusory findings. Modification of joint physical custody requires both a substantial change in circumstances affecting the child’s welfare and that modification serves the child’s best interest, with specific findings tied to both prongs; mere continuation of chronic conflict is generally insufficient, and custody may not be used to punish a parent. Within joint legal custody, decision-making authority need not be equal and may be allocated by subject matter. Expert bias generally goes to weight rather than requiring exclusion; a represented party may stipulate to vexatious-litigant status; attorney fees may be awarded when a claim is brought or maintained without reasonable ground, with the amount guided by the Brunzell factors and, in domestic cases, the parties’ relative financial positions; and an unchallenged independent alternative ground supporting an award stands intact.
The Court of Appeals held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion and Affirmed both orders.
2. Elwardt v. Elwardt, No. 88886-COA, Order Affirming in Part, Vacating in Part and Remanding (Unpublished Disposition, June 18, 2026)
Todd and Tracy Elwardt were married in 2013, and Tracy filed for divorce in October 2023, seeking property division, periodic alimony, and rehabilitative alimony. After a trial addressing the parties’ properties, Todd’s payroll records, and their communications, the District Court (Charles Hoskin) awarded Tracy four dogs valued at $2,000, half the equity in the marital residence, and half of Todd’s roughly $400,000 in unpaid commissions earned during the marriage. It also awarded her $4,000 per month for four years in periodic alimony and $24,000 over two years in rehabilitative alimony. Todd appealed.
Todd’s appeal argued that the District Court erred in awarding him none of the dogs (contending two were separate-property gifts) and in valuing them; that the periodic alimony award and its income findings were an abuse of discretion because the court gave Tracy a community share of his unpaid commissions without accounting for the resulting reduction in his income, and imputed too little income to Tracy; that awarding Tracy a community share of the marital-residence equity failed to credit his separate-property contributions traced through successive homes; that the rehabilitative alimony award lacked substantial-evidence support given Tracy’s education; and that the matter should be remanded to a different judge for apparent bias.
In Nevada, property determinations and characterizations are reviewed for abuse of discretion and upheld if supported by substantial evidence, but no deference is owed to legal error or conclusory findings. Property acquired during marriage is presumed community property, rebuttable only by clear and convincing evidence, including a showing of a gift; separate property placed into joint tenancy or commingled with community funds is presumed gifted to the community absent clear and convincing evidence otherwise, and compensation for work performed during the marriage belongs to the community. Alimony must be just and equitable, based on the recipient’s need and the payor’s ability to pay, and the court shall consider the statutory factors with remand required where the decree does not show adequate consideration of the applicable factors. Judges are presumed unbiased, and disqualification or reassignment requires bias from an extrajudicial source or deep-seated antagonism.
The Court of Appeals held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in characterizing the dogs, the commissions, or the marital-residence equity as community property, or in awarding rehabilitative alimony, and that reassignment to a different judge was not warranted because the challenged comments arose from the litigation rather than an extrajudicial source. It vacated the periodic alimony award, however, because the decree did not make specific findings acknowledging that Tracy’s community share of Todd’s pre-divorce commissions could substantially reduce his post-divorce income while strengthening her financial position, and it remanded for the court to re-evaluate Todd’s income and make adequate findings under the applicable alimony factors (and to ensure Todd is compensated for his community interest in the dogs).
Affirmed in Part, Vacated in Part, and Remanded
3. Hicks v. Lindsey, No. 91345-COA, Order of Affirmance (Unpublished Disposition, June 29, 2026)
Eddie Lindsey and Nia Bullock had two minor children, and Bullock died shortly after the second child’s birth. Nia Hicks, Bullock’s mother and the children’s grandmother, petitioned to establish grandparent visitation, alleging that Lindsey had unreasonably denied or restricted her visits. Lindsey opposed, stating that he had not unreasonably denied visitation and was willing to allow some visits. After trial, the District Court (Heidi Almase) noted that Hicks lived primarily in Virginia, but traveled to Las Vegas frequently through her airline employment and had visited roughly eight times in the prior year, and that Lindsey — while not on good terms with Hicks — had not hindered her relationship with the children and had concerns about disruptive overnight visits, particularly because the youngest child has sickle cell anemia requiring care. The court found Lindsey a fit parent who had not denied or unreasonably restricted visitation, found it in the children’s best interest to let him set their schedules, and denied the petition.
Hicks appealed, asking the Court of Appeals to reevaluate the evidence presented to the District Court, including evidence concerning her involvement and relationship with the children.
In Nevada, a district court’s visitation decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion, which occurs only when no reasonable judge could reach a similar conclusion under the same circumstances, and the court is presumed to have properly exercised its discretion in determining a child’s best interests. Grandparents may petition for reasonable visitation, but such visitation may be granted only when a parent has denied or unreasonably restricted visits with the child. The reviewing court does not reweigh evidence or reassess credibility, and it need not consider issues unsupported by cogent argument, treating unchallenged or unraised points as forfeited.
The Court of Appeals held that Hicks failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion and Affirmed. The judgment denying the petition was Affirmed.
4. Paul v. Paul, No. 89845-COA, Order Affirming in Part, Reversing in Part, Dismissing in Part and Remanding (Unpublished Disposition, June 30, 2026)
The parties married in 2017 and have two minor children. The husband filed for divorce, and the wife counterclaimed. Before trial, the parties agreed on custody, child support, and alimony, so the District Court (Bill Henderson) tried only the division of community property and child support arrears. Testimony centered on funds the husband withdrew from a bank account after separation, a vehicle he drove, the arrears amount, and whether daycare payments could offset the arrears. The decree found that the husband held more community property, ordered an equalization payment to the wife, reduced arrears to judgement, set monthly child support by stipulation, and indicated that the court would later award the wife attorney fees.
The husband appealed the decree, arguing that the equalization payment was in error because the withdrawn funds repaid a community debt to his mother and grandmother, that the wife failed to disclose bank statements, that the husband made additional mortgage payments, and that the arrears portion lacked offset findings. In reply, the husband argued that he was at least entitled to half the equalization amount because the award produced an unequal distribution without adequate findings. He also challenged the monthly child support obligation and the anticipated attorney fee award.
In Nevada, a district court’s characterization of property is upheld if supported by substantial evidence; property acquired during marriage is presumed community; and a spouse claiming separate property must prove it by clear and convincing evidence. Appellate courts do not reweigh evidence or credibility findings. Community property must be divided equally absent a compelling reason supported by written findings, and child support orders may not be retroactively modified. Arguments not raised in the district court are forfeited, and appellate jurisdiction requires a final, appealable order, so a fee award the court has only signaled it will make later is not yet ripe.
The Court of Appeals held that substantial evidence and the District Court’s credibility findings supported treating the withdrawn funds as community property not used to repay a loan, and it affirmed that determination. But the court reversed the equalization award because the court effectively gave the wife a larger share without the findings required for an unequal distribution, remanding to either divide the property equally or state sufficient reasons for an unequal split. The court held that the husband forfeited his child support argument by not raising it earlier, and it dismissed the attorney fee challenge without prejudice as not ripe. The judgment was therefore Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part, Dismissed in Part, and Remanded.
5. Lancaster v. Baurle (and the Clark Co. D.A. – Family Support Division), No. 91372-COA, Order of Affirmance (Unpublished Disposition, June 30, 2026)
The Clark County District Attorney’s Family Support Division initiated proceedings to compel the appellant to pay child support for his minor child with the respondent. The appellant signed an acceptance of service, and later, an order upon consent acknowledging paternity and agreeing to pay support and arrears, which was entered in December 2022. Years later, after the Division moved to enforce the order and seek a contempt finding for nonpayment, the appellant countermoved to set the consent order aside, claiming that he had signed under duress and coercion, and that the order was void for improper service. A hearing master recommended denying the motion, and the District Court (Adriana White) overruled his objection and adopted that recommendation.
The appellant appealed, arguing that denying the motion to set aside was an abuse of discretion because the consent order was void, and that he was fraudulently induced into accepting service, and therefore, the court lacked subject matter and personal jurisdiction. He further argued that the District Court abused its discretion by affirming despite evidence that the record was “forged,” pointing to a difference between the hearing master’s written recommendation and an oral statement that the matter would be stayed, and that the court failed in a duty to police prosecutorial misconduct. He also filed an emergency motion to strike the record on appeal.
In Nevada, orders regarding child support are reviewed for abuse of discretion, which occurs when findings are not supported by substantial evidence, and a district court has broad discretion over motions to set aside a judgment. District courts have subject matter jurisdiction over child support matters, personal jurisdiction may be obtained through proper service, and objections to personal jurisdiction or defective service are waived if not raised in a timely manner. A motion to set aside based on fraud or misrepresentation must be filed within six months. A court’s oral pronouncement is not effective for any purpose, so a written order may differ from what was said from the bench. Appellate courts need not address arguments that are not cogently presented.
The Court of Appeals held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to set aside; that the appellant failed to show any lack of subject matter jurisdiction; that substantial evidence supported the finding that he accepted service and was properly served; and that he had waived any jurisdiction or service challenge by not raising it in a timely manner; that his fraud-based ground was untimely, and the claimed “forgery” was merely a permissible written order differing from an oral statement; and that his prosecutorial misconduct argument was not cogently argued. The court affirmed the judgment and denied the emergency motion to strike.
- New Cases Added to MLAW: 5 COA Unpublished: Carerra, Campbell, Plata, Ocasio, and Stevens - September 19, 2026
- Vol. 82 — The Evolution of Sole Custody in Nevada - September 15, 2026
- New Cases Added to MLAW: 5 COA Unpublished: Ortega, In the Matter of the Joint Petition of Lynn and John McKendry, Wolfe, Grigalanz, and Adams - September 9, 2026