New Cases Added to MLAW: 5 COA Unpublished: Schmidt, Davis, Neyman, Duran, and Ortiz

by | Oct 26, 2025 | Nevada Family Law Appeals | 0 comments

  1.    Schmidt v. Fay, No. 87592-COA, Order of Affirmance (Unpublished Disposition, August 12, 2025)

Allison Schmidt and Erland Fay were married in 2019 and share one child, born in 2018. Schmidt filed for divorce in 2022, seeking child support arrears, reimbursement for health-related expenses, and costs associated with pregnancy and delivery. During trial, the parties reached a partial settlement on custody and financial matters. Although Schmidt initially expressed a desire to preserve claims for IVF expenses and past child support, she ultimately agreed on the record to accept a $2,000 payment from Fay as full settlement of all outstanding financial claims.  The district court (Gregory Gordon) entered a divorce decree reflecting the parties’ on-record agreement. Schmidt later filed a motion under NRCP 59 seeking to amend the decree, arguing that it misrepresented the scope of the settlement. She also requested a continuance after receiving a Facebook friend request from the judge, citing concerns about impartiality. The district court denied both motions.

Schmidt appealed, challenging the validity of the settlement reflected in the decree and the denial of her post-decree motion.

In Nevada, settlement agreements are contracts requiring mutual assent to essential terms.  Contract interpretation is reviewed de novo; factual findings are reviewed for clear error or lack of substantial evidence.  EDCR 5.601 stipulations placed on the record and adopted by the court are binding and enforceable.  NRCP 59 allows motions for a new trial or to alter/amend a judgment.

The Court of Appeals held that substantial evidence supported the district court’s finding that Schmidt agreed to the $2,000 settlement as full resolution of financial claims. The transcript showed Schmidt accepted the offer and confirmed agreement on the record. The court also found no prejudice or bias resulting from the Facebook friend request, and no basis for reversal under NRCP 59.  The divorce decree and denial of post-decree motion were affirmed.

 

  1.    Davis v. The Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada, County of Clark; and the Hon. Mary Perry; and Child Support Hearing Master James Davis; and Javeia Riley, Real Parties in Interest, No. 91080-COA, Order Denying Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Davis filed an emergency petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition, challenging various orders issued in a child custody and support matter. The respondents include the Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Family Division, Judge Mary Perry, and several real parties in interest: Child Support Hearing Master James Davis, the Clark County District Attorney Family Support Division, and Javeia Riley.

In Nevada, a Writ of Mandamus may compel performance of a legal duty or correct an arbitrary/capricious exercise of discretion (NRS 34.160; Int’l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 124 Nev. 193).  A Writ of Prohibition may arrest proceedings of a tribunal acting in excess of jurisdiction (NRS 34.320).  The decision to grant such writs lies within the court’s discretion, and the petitioner bears the burden of proving entitlement (Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222).

The Nevada Court of Appeals denied the petition.

 

  1.    Neyman v. Neyman, No. 86780-COA, Order Affirming in Part, Reversing in Part, and Remanding (Unpublished Disposition, August 21, 2025)

Natasha Marie Neyman (now Natasha Marie Love) and Michael Stanley Neyman divorced in 2015. The divorce decree awarded Natasha primary custody of their two children and ordered Michael to pay child support, general family support alimony, and rehabilitative alimony contingent on Natasha’s enrollment in higher education. Natasha ceased attending school in 2020, but continued receiving rehabilitative alimony until mid-2022. She later filed a motion to modify child support and alimony, and to recover unpaid amounts. The district court: denied jurisdiction to modify alimony, increased child support to $4,035/month, ordered Natasha to repay $15,000 in overpaid rehabilitative alimony, found Michael owed $6,500 in attorney fees, and denied both parties’ requests for attorney fees under the decree’s fee-shifting provision.

Natasha appealed the district court’s rulings, stating that the district court erred in denying jurisdiction to modify alimony, that reimbursement of rehabilitative alimony to Michael was improper, that the district court abused its discretion in evidentiary and procedural rulings, and that she was entitled to attorney fees or post-judgment interest.

In Nevada, a court retains jurisdiction only if the alimony period has not expired, or if the payor is in arrears (Siragusa v. Siragusa, 108 Nev. 987).  Reimbursement claims must be properly raised via motion under NRCP 7(b)(1); due process requires notice and opportunity to respond.  Attorney Fees must be requested under the applicable provision; failure to cite the correct basis forfeits the claim. Child Support Modifications must follow NAC 425.140 and NAC 425.150(1); upward deviations require specific findings.

The Nevada Court of Appeals held that the district court correctly found that it lacked jurisdiction to modify alimony; that the district court erred in ordering Natasha to reimburse Michael for rehabilitative alimony without proper notice or motion; that the district court did not abuse its discretion in evidentiary rulings, denying continuance, or refusing post-judgment interest; and that neither party was entitled to attorney fees under the decree’s fee-shifting provision.

The Nevada Court of Appeals Reversed: The $8,500 reimbursement order to Michael. Affirmed: All other aspects of the district court’s judgment.  Remanded: For entry of a new judgment awarding Natasha $6,500 in attorney fee arrears without reduction for rehabilitative alimony.

 

  1.    Duran v. De Armas, No. 87593-COA, Order of Affirmance (Unpublished Disposition, August 26, 2025)

Janelle Duran and Jimmie De Armas, who were never married, share two children. In March 2023, Duran filed for sole legal and primary physical custody. De Armas countered, initially seeking joint custody, but later requesting primary physical custody. The district court (Heidi Almase) temporarily ordered joint custody. Duran’s attorney withdrew shortly before trial, and her last-minute request for a continuance was denied. At trial, Duran declined to testify or present evidence. De Armas testified extensively about Duran’s lack of cooperation, her interference with custody, and expressed concerns about her employment and handling of the children’s modeling income.

The Initial Decree: De Armas was awarded primary physical custody; both parties retained joint legal custody.  Duran was ordered to pay $668/month in child support based on his imputed income.  The court ordered the establishment of a blocked account for the child’s modeling earnings. Duran appealed.

Post-Decree Modification: De Armas moved for sole legal custody and supervised visitation for Duran.  The court granted temporary sole legal custody pending a hearing.  After the evidentiary hearing, the court awarded sole legal custody to De Armas, denied supervised visitation, and ordered Duran to attend monthly therapy sessions for six months.

Duran appealed the post-decree order, arguing: that the district court abused its discretion in denying her request for a trial continuance, limiting her ability to present evidence; that the award of primary physical custody to De Armas was improper; that the court erred in imputing income to Duran for child support; that the modification to sole legal custody was not supported by substantial evidence; and that the court erred in ordering Duran to attend therapy.

In Nevada, custody determinations must be based on the child’s best interest (NRS 125C.0035); courts must consider 12 statutory factors. Imputed Income is permitted under NAC 425.125 if a parent is unemployed or underemployed without good cause.  Legal custody modifications require a substantial change in circumstances, and that modification serves the child’s best interest. Therapy orders are permissible if supported by evidence and aligned with the child’s best interest.

The Nevada Court of Appeals held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the continuance, or in limiting Duran’s evidence due to her procedural failures; that the award of primary physical custody to De Armas was supported by substantial evidence and a proper best interest analysis; that imputing income to Duran was justified based on her education, health, and prior employment; that the modification to sole legal custody was warranted due to Duran’s conduct post-decree; and that the therapy order was appropriate and supported by findings related to parenting and co-parenting challenges.

Affirmed.

 

  1.    Ortiz v. Ortiz, No 89440-COA, Order Affirming in Part, Reversing in Part and Remanding (Unpublished Disposition, September 3, 2025)

Leslie and Josue Ortiz married in 2016. In 2018, Josue purchased a condominium on Cardiff Lane for $110,000 with a $10,000 down payment. Leslie signed a grant, bargain, sale deed conveying the property to Josue, though she later claimed she did not understand the nature of the document. The couple separated in 2019, and Leslie moved out in 2020. Josue refinanced the property in 2023, increasing the mortgage to $136,000, with the property then valued at $220,000. Leslie filed for divorce in 2023, seeking half the equity in the condo.

The district court (Regina McConnell) found that the Cardiff property was Josue’s sole and separate property based on the deed and testimony; that Leslie’s cleaning business was her separate property; and that the parties would retain their respective bank accounts, debts, and vehicles.

Leslie appealed, challenging the classification of the Cardiff property, arguing that the district court erred in classifying the Cardiff property entirely as Josue’s separate property without accounting for the community’s interest in the equity and appreciation resulting from the use of community funds.

In Nevada, assets acquired during marriage are presumed community property (NRS 123.220).  A spouse conveying title to the other creates a presumption of a gift (NRS 123.130; Kerley v. Kerley).  Use of community funds (e.g., wages) to pay mortgage or improve separate property creates a community interest (Malmquist v. Malmquist; Robison v. Robison).

The Nevada Court Appeals held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding Leslie gifted the property to Josue; and that the court abused its discretion by failing to determine and divide the community’s interest in the increased equity and appreciation due to the use of community funds.

Affirmed: Josue owns the Cardiff property as separate property due to the gift. Reversed and Remanded: The district court must conduct a Malmquist analysis to determine and divide the community’s interest in the property’s equity and appreciation.

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