New Cases Added to MLAW: 5 COA Unpublished: Sotelo, Antwann B., Jensen, Groves, and Elder

by | Dec 22, 2025 | Nevada Family Law Appeals | 0 comments

1.    Sotelo v. Sotelo, No. 88638-COA, Order Affirming in Part, Reversing in Part and Remanding (Unpublished Disposition, September 30, 2025)

Paulina and Randy Sotelo married in 1997 and share three children (two minors at the time of trial).  They purchased the marital home in 2005 with community funds, but the title and deed listed Paulina as sole owner as Randy quitclaimed his interest at purchase.  Both parties agreed that the mortgage would be paid with community funds.

Paulina became disabled in 2018.  Randy filed for divorce in 2023, with disputes over custody, property, and alimony.  Ultimately, Paulina conceded that all house payments were made with community funds, that title was placed in her name because of a pending suit against Randy, and that it was a “community asset.”  No evidence of an intent to make a gift was presented.

The District Court (Bryce Duckworth) characterized the marital home as community property. The court ordered the sale of the home to pay community debt (~$27,000), split the remaining equity (~$237,000), and awarded Paulina periodic alimony of $750/month for 11 years (later extended to permanent alimony). The court denied lump-sum alimony, and Paulina’s request to keep the home.

Paulina appealed, challenging the characterization of the home as community property, the denial of lump-sum alimony, and argued that the court failed to consider the hardship of losing the home.  Apparently, at some point the Supreme Court stayed sale of the home pending the appeal.

In Nevada, under NRS 123.220, property acquired during a marriage is presumed to be community property, rebuttable by clear and convincing evidence. A quitclaim creates the presumption of a gift (NRS 123.130, Kerley v. Kerley). Under NRS 125.150(9), a court may award periodic or lump-sum alimony (Schwartz v. Schwartz, 126 Nev. 87).

The Court of Appeals Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part, and Remanded.

The Court of Appeals Affirmed the home characterization, finding that; Paulina failed to rebut the community property presumption; did not introduce deeds at trial; and conceded that the home was community property. The court Reversed the decision on the alimony issue, finding that the District Court abused its discretion by failing to analyze whether lump-sum alimony would be appropriate, and “formally analyze the hardship of losing the marital home when she would be without reasonable alternative housing.” The Appeals Court noted that equity in the home (~$237,000) and the original alimony order ($99,000 over 11 years) could justify an offset. The Supreme Court’s stay on the home sale remained, pending remand.

 

2.    Antwann B. v. The Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., Clark Co., the Hon. Margaret Pickard, Dist. Judge, and Clark Co. Dept. of Fam. Svs., A.B. Jr. and A.O., Minors, Real Parties in Interest, No. 91507-COA, Order Denying Petition (Unpublished Disposition, Nov. 7, 2025)

Petitioners Antwann B. and Jessica B. filed a pro se emergency petition for a Writ of Mandamus or Prohibition challenging the jurisdiction of the district court in a matter under NRS Chapter 432B (child welfare proceedings).  They sought extraordinary relief to stop or control proceedings involving the Clark County Department of Family Services and two minor children.  Petitioners argued that the district court (Margaret Pickard) lacked jurisdiction, and requested that the appellate court intervene.

In Nevada, a Writ of Mandamus compels performance of a duty required by law or controls arbitrary discretion (NRS 34.160; Int’l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 124 Nev. 193 (2008)).  Prohibition prevents a tribunal from acting in excess of jurisdiction (NRS 34.320).  Extraordinary Writ Relief is discretionary; petitioner must show entitlement (Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222 (2004)).

The Court of Appeals DENIED the petition, finding that the petitioners failed to demonstrate that extraordinary relief was warranted. The Emergency Motion filed October 24, 2025 was denied as moot.

 

3.    Jensen v. Petersen, No. 90580-COA, Order of Affirmance (Unpublished Disposition, November 12, 2025)

Chandler Jensen and Natasha Petersen share one child.  In 2023, Jensen filed for custody and Petersen counterclaimed. While the case was pending, Petersen obtained an extended order of protection against Jensen (May–Nov 2024) due to alleged harassment.  In August 2024, the District Court (Mason Simons) issued a custody decree granting joint legal and physical custody, noting the ongoing DCFS investigation into Petersen and her boyfriend.

Later, Petersen moved to modify custody, claiming: the DCFS investigation concluded and the allegations were deemed unfounded; Jensen violated the protection order and harassed Petersen via messages; and Jensen entered a no-contest plea to charges stemming from violation of the protection order.  The district court awarded Peterson primary physical custody of the child.

Jensen appealed, arguing that; the admission of text message evidence was improper; there was no substantial change in circumstances; the District Court erred by considering his no-contest plea; the best interest factors and domestic violence presumption was misapplied.

In Nevada, a party requesting a custody modification must show; (1) substantial change in circumstances affecting child’s welfare, and (2) modification serves child’s best interest. Ellis v. Carucci, 123 Nev. 145 (2007); Romano v. Romano, 138 Nev. 1 (2022).  Under NRS 125C.0035(5) clear and convincing evidence of domestic violence creates rebuttable presumption against awarding physical custody.  Authentication of text messages requires corroborating evidence. (Rodriguez v. State, 128 Nev. 155).

The Court of Appeals AFFIRMED, finding that; the text messages were properly authenticated and admitted; substantial evidence supported findings of changed circumstances (DCFS outcome, harassment, violation of protection order); the no-contest plea should not have been considered, but the error was harmless; clear and convincing evidence showed Jensen engaged in harassment constituting domestic violence; the presumption against joint custody applied.  The best interest factors favored Petersen. Modification to primary physical custody for Petersen was upheld (joint legal custody retained, with Petersen given final decision-making authority on healthcare and education).

 

4.    Groves v. Johnson, No. 89931-COA, Order of Affirmance (Unpublished Disposition, November 18, 2025)

Matthew Groves and Sarah Johnson married in 2019 and have two minor children (born 2018 and 2019).  Their September 2023 divorce decree awarded joint legal and physical custody. In October 2023, Johnson was granted temporary primary custody while Groves was incarcerated from August to December 2023.  After release, Groves had little contact with the children.  Johnson relocated to Iowa.

In March 2024, Johnson filed a motion to modify custody and notice of relocation.  Groves opposed, alleging that the relocation was without consent.  At the evidentiary hearing, Johnson testified that Groves threatened her, had an extensive criminal history (including domestic violence), and sent messages saying that he wanted to give up his parental rights.  Johnson obtained a protection order after Groves appeared at her Iowa home.   Additionally, Groves admitted to long-term methamphetamine use, receiving no drug treatment, living in a weekly motel, and un-familiarity with the children’s needs.  The District Court (Aimee Banales) granted Johnson’s motion.

Groves appealed, claiming that the District Court abused its discretion by allowing relocation without consent, failed to consider children’s best interests, and that the parenting time awarded was too restrictive.

In Nevada, a parent with joint custody must obtain consent or a court order before relocating. NRS 125C.0065.  A court must apply the relocation factors enumerated in NRS 125C.007.  A party requesting a custody modification must show that a substantial change in circumstances has occurred, and that modification is in best interest of child. (Romano v. Romano, 138 Nev. 1).

The Court of Appeals AFFIRMED, finding; Johnson relocated without consent, but evidence showed that she acted out of fear of domestic violence, and based on Groves’ messages indicating that he wanted no contact with the children. The District Court properly applied NRS 125C.007 relocation factors and best interest analysis, finding the children thriving in Iowa, exhibited improved behavior, and received medical care.  Johnson’s motives were honorable. Groves’ criminal history, drug use, and unstable living situation weighed heavily against him.  The parenting time was the least restrictive given Groves’ unfitness.  No abuse of discretion was found.

 

5.    Elder v. Elder, No. 90368-COA, Order of Affirmance and Dismissal in Part (Unpublished Disposition, November 20, 2025)

Maria and Kevin Elder married in 2012. They divorced in 2020.  Their Prenuptial Agreement waived community property accrual and alimony.  The divorce decree awarded joint legal and physical custody. Kevin’s child support obligation was unresolved.

In October 2023, the District Court (Vincent Ochoa) set Kevin’s child support obligation at $8,000/month based on his income of $125,000/month after Maria failed to appear at the evidentiary hearing. Maria later filed multiple motions to modify child support, arguing that Kevin’s income should be $500,000/month based on prior proposed settlement terms. The District Court denied both motions, finding that Maria failed to allege changed circumstances warranting modification.

Maria appealed, challenging the March 2025 order denying her second motion to modify child support, the divorce decree, and the October 2023 child support order (dismissed as untimely).

In Nevada, a party requesting a modification must show; (1) a change in circumstances since the entry of order, and (2) modification is in child’s best interest. Rivero v. Rivero, 125 Nev. 410 (2009).  Untimely appeals are dismissed under NRAP 3A(b)(1); Healy v. Volkswagenwerk, 103 Nev. 329 (1987).

The Court of Appeals Affirmed in Part and Dismissed in Part.

The Court of Appeals AFFIRMED the District Court’s March 2025 order denying Maria Elder’s second motion to modify child support, finding that Maria failed to demonstrate any changed circumstances, or provide a cogent argument showing that modification was warranted or in the children’s best interest. The court DISMISSED Maria’s challenge of the September 2022 divorce decree and the October 2023 child support order as untimely, finding that those issues should have been raised in a timely appeal from those earlier orders.

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