New Cases Added to MLAW: 5 COA Unpublished: Mead, Cornwall, Tavares, Bruchu, and Sovey

by | Mar 8, 2026 | Nevada Family Law Appeals | 0 comments

1.    Mead v. Mead, No. 90450-COA, Order of Affirmance (Unpublished Disposition, December 23, 2025)

Kathryn and Brian divorced in 2007 and share three children, with only R.M. remaining a minor until he turned 18 in January 2025 and graduated from high school that May. After a house fire occurred at Brian’s home in February 2024, Kathryn sought primary custody of R.M., but the district court’s 2024 order granted the parties joint legal and physical custody and set Brian’s child support obligation. Kathryn appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed that order. In February 2025, following remittitur, she filed a new motion to modify custody and support, arguing that the 2024 order was legally incorrect, that she became R.M.’s de facto primary custodian after the fire, and that child support should be recalculated due to her financial struggles and Brian’s alleged income misrepresentation—though she provided no updated financial disclosure form or supporting evidence. The District Court (T. Arthur Ritchie, Jr.) denied the motion without a hearing, finding that R.M. was now an adult, that Kathryn failed to present any evidence of changed circumstances, and that the issues had already been litigated and affirmed on appeal.

Kathryn appealed, arguing that the District Court abused its discretion by denying the motion to modify custody without an evidentiary hearing, and challenged the District Court’s 2024 custody order, contending that the 2025 order suffered from the same defects as the 2024 order.

In Nevada, the law of the case doctrine requires courts to follow prior appellate decisions on issues already resolved, preventing their re-litigation, consistent with Hsu v. Clark County. A party seeking to modify physical custody is entitled to an evidentiary hearing only if they first establish adequate cause by making a prima facie showing of both a substantial change in circumstances since the prior order, and that modification would serve the child’s best interest, as outlined in Rooney v. Rooney, Romano v. Romano, and Ellis v. Carucci. Child support may be reviewed “at any time” only upon a showing of changed circumstances under NRS 125B.145(4). The prima facie burden is heavy. Although allegations are accepted as true at this stage, they must be specific and demonstrate a material change since the last order, as emphasized in Myers v. Haskins (Nev. Ct. App. 2022).

The Court of Appeals held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to modify custody without an evidentiary hearing, and that Kathryn was barred from re-litigation of attacks on the 2024 custody order.

AFFIRMED.

 

2.    Cornwall v. Cornwall, No. 90332-COA, Order Affirming in Part, Reversing in Part and Remanding (Unpublished Disposition, December 19, 2025)

Erin and Joseph divorced in 2022 and share four minor children—twins E.C. and Sa.C. (born 2007), Sh.C. (born 2009), and F.C. (born 2012)—under a decree awarding them joint legal and joint physical custody. In December 2024, Erin moved to modify custody, alleging:that Joseph used abusive language and committed physical violence against Sa.C. in 2023; that videos show him yelling at and berating the children; and that Sh.C.’s recently identified LGBTQ+ status had led to conflict due to Joseph’s negative reactions. She further claimed that Joseph installed surveillance equipment inside his home, that E.C. expressed self-harm ideation tied to Joseph’s household environment, and that Joseph refused to use the parenting coordinator, impeded mental health services, mishandled a medical incident involving F.C., and violated the summer parenting schedule. Joseph denied the allegations, asserting that the complaints reflected parenting style differences, and submitted messages showing that he supported counseling and communicated affection toward the children. The District Court (Gregory Gordon) held a non-evidentiary hearing and denied Erin’s motion.

Erin appealed, arguing that the District Court erred by denying her motion to modify custody without holding an evidentiary hearing, abused its discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing on a number of issues, and abused its discretion by not conducting an evidentiary hearing on the allegation of domestic violence regarding Sa.C.

In Nevada, a District Court may deny a motion to modify custody without holding an evidentiary hearing unless the movant demonstrates “adequate cause,” as explained in Rooney v. Rooney. Adequate cause requires a prima facie showing that a substantial change in circumstances affecting the child’s welfare has occurred since the last custody order, and that modification would be in the child’s best interest, consistent with Romano v. Romano and Ellis v. Carucci. At this stage, the court must accept the movant’s specific factual allegations as true unless the opposing party’s evidence conclusively disproves them, following Myers v. Haskins. Allegations of domestic violence—including assault or battery against a minor child—are highly significant and trigger strong statutory presumptions against awarding custody to the perpetrator under NRS 125C.0035(10)(b) and NRS 33.018. Additionally, courts have discretion to conduct child interviews when evaluating best interest factors pursuant to NRS 125C.0035(4)(a).

The Court of Appeals held that the District Court erred in denying an evidentiary hearing on the domestic violence allegation involving Sa.C. because Erin’s allegations, if true, constituted a substantial change in circumstances.  However, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying a hearing on the other issues (LGBTQ+ concerns, mental health disagreements, cameras, parenting time disputes, etc.).

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

 

3.    Tavares v. Tavares, No. 88561-COA, Order Affirming in Part, Reversing in Part and Remanding (Unpublished Disposition, January 20, 2026)

Edgar and Jenny married in 2016, share one child born in 2017, and divorced in April 2021. A stipulated decree granted joint legal custody, primary physical custody to Jenny, and Edgar received parenting time from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. on weekends with no overnights, along with $750 per month in child support. The decree permitted the parties to adjust the schedule by agreement. In November 2022, Edgar moved to modify custody, asserting that the parties had not followed the decree, and had instead exercised de facto joint physical custody, with him seeing the child nearly every day. He alleged that after his attorney sent Jenny an October 2022 letter seeking to conform the decree to the “actual schedule,” she abruptly reverted to enforcing the decree’s limited timeshare, which he claimed constituted a substantial change in circumstances detrimental to the child. Following a two-day evidentiary hearing, the District Court (Mari Parlade) granted the modification in December 2023, ordering joint physical custody, and modifying child support so that Jenny paid Edgar $217.37 per month. Jenny then moved to amend under NRCP 52, 59, and 60, and the court agreed that it had misinterpreted the evidence. In April 2024, the court issued second amended findings reinstating Jenny’s primary physical custody, and ordering Edgar to pay $1,209.30 per month. While Edgar appealed, the District Court entertained a Huneycutt remand, and in November 2024 entered an NRCP 60(a) order correcting additional errors, including reducing Edgar’s timeshare and clarifying that it had improperly considered sibling relationship evidence relating to Edgar’s unborn child with his girlfriend. Edgar amended his appeal to include that order.

Edgar’s appeal argued that the District Court abused its discretion by amending its December 2023 order, by denying Edgar’s custody modification request, erred in modifying child support without required findings, and that the court exhibited bias warranting reversal.

In Nevada, custody modifications require a showing of both a substantial change in circumstances affecting the child, and that the requested modification is in the child’s best interest, as established in Romano v. Romano and Ellis v. Carucci. The appellate court will not disturb factual findings that are supported by substantial evidence, and trial courts retain authority to amend or enter new findings under NRCP 59(e) or NRCP 60(a). Child support obligations may be modified within three years only upon a showing of changed circumstances under NRS 125B.145(4), and although a review is mandatory upon request after three years, modification still requires changed circumstances. Allegations of judicial bias must meet the high standard of demonstrating “deep seated favoritism or antagonism” that makes fair judgment impossible, as articulated in Canarelli v. Eighth Judicial District Court.

The Court of Appeals AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED for further proceedings on child support.

AFFIRMED, holding that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that no substantial change existed, and that Jenny should retain primary physical custody.

REVERSED, holding that the District Court erred by modifying support without finding the required changed circumstances.

Judicial Bias: No basis for relief.

 

4.    Bruchu v. The Eight District Court of Nevada, County of Clark, and the HON. Heidi Almase, District Judge, and Thomas Bruchu, Real Party in Interest, No. 91525-COA, Order Denying Petition (Unpublished Disposition, January 23, 2026)

Tiffanee Bruchu filed an emergency pro se petition for a writ of mandamus. She challenged temporary emergency child custody orders issued by the Eighth Judicial District Court (Heidi Almase).

In Nevada, a writ of mandamus may issue to compel the performance of a required legal duty under NRS 34.160, or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion, as recognized in Int’l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial District Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197 (2008). The granting of such extraordinary relief lies within the appellate court’s sole discretion, and the petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating a clear entitlement to this remedy. Pan v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228 (2004).

The Court of Appeals held that the petitioner did not demonstrate entitlement to extraordinary writ relief.

Petition DENIED.

 

5.    Sovey v. Sovey, No. 89901-COA, Order of Affirmance (Unpublished Disposition, January 22, 2026)

Jacob Sovey and Samantha Herrick share three minor children. Sovey has primary physical custody pursuant to a prior proceeding. In 2024, Herrick sought modification of her child support obligation of $833/month (excluding arrears).  Her request was based on a change in employment.  At the November 2024 hearing, a senior deputy attorney general (on behalf of DWSS) presented evidence—including a Sedgwick Claims Management Services verification letter—showing that Herrick’s current monthly income was $2,130, reduced from her prior income of $3,206. Applying NAC 425’s statutory formula (26% of income for three children), the deputy AG calculated Herrick’s child support obligation to be $554/month, plus $170/month toward arrears of $21,189.57, for a total obligation of $724/month. Sovey was given an opportunity to respond but presented no argument. The District Court (Aimee Banales) adopted the recommendation and modified support accordingly.

Sovey appealed, arguing that the court erred by reducing Herrick’s obligation.

In Nevada, child support orders are reviewed for abuse of discretion, Wallace v. Wallace, 112 Nev. 1015 (1996), and a court abuses its discretion when its findings are not supported by substantial evidence, Miller v. Miller, 134 Nev. 120 (2018). Under NRS 125B.145(4), a change of 20% or more in a party’s gross monthly income constitutes a material change in circumstances requiring review of the support order. NAC 425.140(3) provides that the base child support obligation for three children is 26% of the obligor’s gross monthly income for the first $6,000 of income. Further, since February 1, 2020, courts must apply the child support guidelines established under NRS 425.620 rather than the former NRS 125B.070/.080 framework, as confirmed in Backman v. Gelbman, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 8 (Ct. App. 2025).

The Court of Appeals held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in reducing Herrick’s child support obligation based on her decreased income and the applicable statutory formula.

AFFIRMED.

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