1. Dos Santos v. Dreibelbis, No. 89249-COA, Order of Reversal and Remand (Unpublished Disposition, September 16, 2025)
Maria Rosa Dos Santos (Argentinian, expired U.S. visa) and Mark Vincent Dreibelbis (U.S. citizen, Nevada real estate agent) met via a dating app in late 2021 and married in Las Vegas in February 2022. Maria moved to Nevada. Mark supported her financially and began helping with her residency application, which was never filed due to his business struggles. The Relationship deteriorated. Maria alleged domestic violence in October 2022, leading to Mark’s arrest. The charges were dismissed when Maria did not testify. In May 2023, Maria filed for divorce. Mark counterclaimed for annulment, alleging Maria married him solely for immigration benefits and that she fabricated abuse claims. The District Court (Mary Perry) granted annulment under NRS 125.340(1), finding that Mark had “sufficiently proven” fraud.
On appeal, Dos Santos argued that the District Court applied the wrong evidentiary standard—“sufficient proof” instead of the required clear and convincing evidence—and failed to analyze fraud elements.
Under NRS 125.340(1): A marriage is void if consent was obtained by fraud and fraud is proved. Fraud must be proven by clear and convincing evidence (Irving v. Irving, 122 Nev. 494). Elements of fraudulent inducement are; false representation, knowledge of falsity, intent to induce reliance, justifiable reliance, and damages (Bulbman, Inc. v. Nev. Bell).
The Court of Appeals Reversed and Remanded the annulment decree.
2. Fassari v. Fassari, No. 90183-COA, Order Affirming in Part, Reversing in Part, and Remanding (Unpublished Disposition, October 23, 2025)
Leslie and Paul Fassari married in 2012 and eventually moved to South Carolina. Later, Leslie, but not Paul, moved to Nevada. Leslie filed for divorce in Nevada seeking alimony and a division of property.
Paul moved to dismiss on the basis that he had no connection to Nevada, arguing that the court could not grant a divorce or address any incident of the marriage under the anti-bifurcation guidance of Gojack v. Second Judicial District Court, 95 Nev. 443. 445, 596 P.2d 237, 239 (1979). Paul also requested attorney’s fees. The district court (Vincent Ochoa) agreed and dismissed the case in its entirety, citing an older unpublished Court of Appeals decision and Simpson v. O’Donnell, 98 Nev. 516, 518, 654 P.2d 1020, 1021 (1982) (holding that the district court is required to obtain in personam jurisdiction over both parties to a divorce prior to adjudicating the incidences of the marriage).
Leslie appealed, arguing that Paul waived his jurisdiction defense by requesting attorney fees, and that even without personal jurisdiction, the court should have granted a divorce under in rem jurisdiction.
In Nevada, Personal Jurisdiction: Requires minimum contacts or consent; and requesting attorney fees does not constitute affirmative relief (Dogra v. Liles; Hansen v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct.). In Rem Jurisdiction: Nevada courts have jurisdiction to dissolve marriage if one party is a bona fide Nevada resident for 6 weeks (NRS 125.020; Simpson v. O’Donnell). NRS 125.120 says that the court “may” grant divorce when grounds exist, but that does not constitute discretion to deny a divorce; the court cannot deny divorce if statutory grounds are met. NRS 125.150 requires property division only “to the extent practicable.”
There is a difference between “divisible divorce,” as here, where the court only has jurisdiction to adjudicate status but not the property and support incidents of a marriage, and “bifurcated divorce,” where a court has jurisdiction over those incidents but does not exercise that jurisdiction while granting a divorce.
The Court of Appeals Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part and Remanded. Affirmed: The District Court correctly found no personal jurisdiction over Paul, and could not adjudicate property or alimony. Reversed: Holding that the District Court abused its discretion by denying divorce without considering statutory grounds under NRS 125.010 and NRS 125.020. Remanded: The court must determine if Leslie met residency and grounds for divorce. If so, the court must grant an in rem divorce, even if property issues are resolved elsewhere. Parties and courts should not cite or rely upon pre-August 15, 2024, unpublished decisions of the Court of Appeals
[Ed. Note: Remarkably, this decision does not even mention the analysis and holding of Fritz Hansen A/S v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 116 Nev. 650, 6 P.3d 982 (2000), which abrogated the special appearance doctrine and under which a defendant may request fees while asserting a lack of personal jurisdiction.]
3. Grigalanz v. The Eight Judicial District Court for the State of Nevada, County of Clark, and the Hon. Jerry Wiese, Chief Judge, and Elizabeth Copas, Real Party in Interest, No. 91396-COA, Order Denying Petition (Unpublished Disposition, October 9, 2025)
Phillip Scott Grigalanz filed an emergency petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition. He sought to challenge the denial by the district court (Jerry Wiese) denial of his motion to disqualify the judge presiding over his custody motion. He argued that the judge should be disqualified, and requested extraordinary relief to stop proceedings or compel action. The petition was filed pro se.
In Nevada, a Writ of Mandamus compels performance of a duty required by law or controls arbitrary/capricious discretion (NRS 34.160; Int’l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 124 Nev. 193). A Writ of Prohibition prevents a tribunal from acting in excess of jurisdiction (NRS 34.320). Burden: Petitioner must show that extraordinary relief is warranted (Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222).
The Court of Appeals DENIED the petition, holding Petitioner failed to demonstrate entitlement to extraordinary relief. The Court also denied related motions (emergency stay and motion to lodge video exhibit).
4. Jasso-Martinez v. Rodriguez Lara, No. 89957-COA, Order of Affirmance (Unpublished Disposition, September 24, 2025)
In 2021, Clodualdo Jasso-Martinez filed a petition seeking sole legal and primary physical custody of three children he shared with Maria Rodriguez Lara, who opposed the petition and sought custody, plus relocation to California. After trial, the District Court (Tamatha Schreinert) awarded primary physical custody to Maria, joint legal custody with Maria having final decision-making authority on schooling and medical issues, and approved relocation to California. Clodualdo was granted holiday/summer parenting time and daily calls.
In 2022 and 2023, Clodualdo filed multiple motions to modify custody, citing unsafe conditions and requesting sole custody. He also filed an ex parte emergency motion alleging misconduct and drug activity. The District Court denied these motions, citing concerns about Clodualdo’s mental health, substance abuse, and his failure to attend hearings and mediation. The District Court ordered a mental health evaluation and weekly counseling before there would be unsupervised parenting time. The Final Order allowed supervised parenting time during breaks and supervised calls.
Clodualdo appealed, arguing that the denial of custody modification was an abuse of discretion, that the mental health findings were erroneous, that the denial of his ex parte emergency motion was improper, and alleged judicial bias based on race.
In Nevada, a modification of custody requires (1) a substantial change in circumstances and (2) that modification serves child’s best interest (Romano v. Romano; Ellis v. Carucci). Best Interest Factors: NRS 125C.0035(1). Mental Health Orders: Court may impose conditions serving child’s best interest (NRS 125C.0045). Ex Parte Relief: Allowed only if child’s health/safety is in danger (WDCR 43(2)(b)(4)). Bias Claims: Require proof of extrajudicial source or deep-seated favoritism (Canarelli v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct.).
The Court of Appeals Affirmed the District Court’s order, holding that Clodualdo failed to attend hearings, did not meet the burden for custody modification, that mental health concerns were supported by substantial evidence, that no emergency justified ex parte relief, and found no evidence of judicial bias.
5. Likua v. Gomez, No. 90164-COA, Order of Affirmance (Unpublished Disposition, October 30, 2025)
Maila Likua and Paulino Gomez married in 2016 and share one child, PJ (born December 2018). After separating in February 2022, Gomez filed for divorce, initiating a prolonged custody dispute. The initial custody order from September 2023 granted joint legal custody, and granted primary physical custody and permission to relocate PJ to Molokai, Hawaii to Maila. Paulino later alleged Maila’s removed PJ from preschool, left Hawaii without consent, and concealed PJ’s whereabouts from April–May 2024. The District Court (Regina McConnell) found substantial changes in circumstances (academic decline, behavioral issues, poor co-parenting, and interference with Paulino’s parenting time). The modified custody order from January 2025 awarded Paulino primary physical custody, PJ relocated to Nevada, and Maila retained substantial parenting time.
Maila appealed, arguing that the District Court violated her due process rights by placing heightened duties and unspecified burdens on her; that the District Court abused its discretion in its analysis of both changed circumstances and best interest factors; that the District court failed to perform a meaningful relocation analysis under NRS 125C.007; claimed that the court exhibited bias in its custodial decisions; and requested an alternate judicial officer upon remand. She also challenged the District Court’s denial/deferment of attorney fees.
In Nevada, for a custody modification, a party must show; (1) substantial change in circumstances affecting child’s welfare; and (2) that modification serves the child’s best interest. Ellis v. Carucci, 123 Nev. 145 (2007); Romano v. Romano, 138 Nev. 1 (2022). All of those were found and substantial evidence supported them. The relocation statute is not technically relevant to this situation, as the child was returned to a parent still living in Nevada, but if it had been relevant, it would have been satisfied.
The Court of Appeals AFFIRMED the District Court’s order.
- New Cases Added to MLAW: 5 COA Unpublished: Rendon, Peralta, Sabo, Goldstein, and Lopez, Jr. - January 9, 2026
- Vol. 81 – Tactical Disqualifications And What To Do About Such Attempts - December 31, 2025
- New Cases Added to MLAW: 5 COA Unpublished: Sotelo, Antwann B., Jensen, Groves, and Elder - December 22, 2025