New Cases added to MLAW: 3 Court of Appeals Unpublished: Habashi, Focht, and Hansen

by | Jun 7, 2024 | Nevada Family Law Appeals | 0 comments

Habashi v. Kamel-Kirollos, No. 85917-COA, Order Affirming in Part, Reversing in Part and Remanding (Unpublished Disposition, Dec. 26, 2023)

DO NOT CITE THIS CASE

Saad Habashi and Sally Kamel-Kirollos were married and have three children. Sally filed for divorce in 2020 and requested joint legal custody of the minor children, primary physical custody of the minor children, child support, and alimony. Saad sough joint legal and physical custody of the children.

The district court (Perry) conducted two trials which dealt with all of their property and custody matters. The court made many property determinations. In addition, the court awarded primary physical custody of the minor daughter to Sally and primary physical custody of the minor son to Saad.

Saad filed a reconsideration motion on numerous grounds, contending that the district court miscalculated the child support arrears, miscalculated the business value, erred by awarding alimony to Sally, and erred by holding him responsible for the mortgage and utility bills. His motion was denied.  Saad appealed.

The Court of Appeals rejected Saad’s claim regarding the district court’s award of primary physical custody of the parties’ minor daughter to Sally. The COA found that the district court’s factual findings on custody were supported by the record. Further, the COA rejected Saad’s challenges to the division of community property and the award of alimony to Sally.

However, the COA found that Saad’s child support obligation for the oldest child should have ceased when that child reached the age of majority under NRS 125C.0045(9). It was unclear to the COA from the record whether the district court considered that issue when it calculated Saad’s child-support arrears. The COA reversed and remanded for additional findings to support the district court’s calculation of Saad’s child support arrears.

 

Focht v. Campbell, No. 86167-COA, Order of Affirmance (Unpublished Disposition, Dec. 20, 2023)

DO NOT CITE THIS CASE

Tyler Focht filed a complaint to establish paternity of a minor child. The district court (Cutter) determined that Tyler was the father of the child and ordered that Tyler share joint legal and physical custody with Analiesa Campbell.

Tyler requested primary physical custody due to the allegation that Analiesa suffers from untreated mental health issues. The district court denied Tyler’s motion to change custody. Tyler appealed.

The Court of Appeals affirmed. The COA found that the district court expressly considered the required factors under NRS 125C.0035(4) concerning the best interests of the child. Further, the COA refused to second guess the district court’s resolution of factual issues involving conflicting evidence or reconsider its credibility findings.

Further, the COA did not receive a copy of the evidentiary hearing transcript so the court was unable to meaningfully review Tyler’s challenges to the district court’s findings and conclusions that were based upon the evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing.

 

Hansen v. Hansen, No. 84435-COA, Order of Affirmance (Unpublished Disposition, Dec. 26, 2023)

DO NOT CITE THIS CASE

Irina Hansen and Donovan Hansen have one minor child and in 2019, Donovan filed for divorce. Donovan requested joint physical and legal custody of their minor child. Irina sought joint legal custody, primary physical custody, child support, and alimony.

Following a trial, the district court (Ritchie, Jr.) awarded joint legal custody and Irina primary physical custody. The district court made numerous findings concerning the parties’ separate and community property, and the community debts. Irina appealed the divorce decree.

The Court of Appeals affirmed. The COA found that the district court applied NRS 125.150(9) and analyzed the appropriate factors for determining an award of alimony. Furthermore, the district court properly divided the community property. On Irina’s challenges, the COA made it clear that it will not second guess a district court’s resolution of factual issues involving conflicting evidence nor reconsider its credibility findings.

Lastly, the COA concluded that Irina did not demonstrate that the district court’s decisions were based on knowledge acquired outside of the proceedings and the court’s decision did not otherwise reflect “a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.”

Marshal S. Willick
Latest posts by Marshal S. Willick (see all)