New Cases Added to MLAW: Five COA Unpublished:  Conte, Sorget, Polk, Posey, and Anderson-Alexander

by | Aug 31, 2025 | Nevada Family Law Appeals | 0 comments

1.    Conte v. Conte, No. 87945-COA, Order Reversing Judgement, Vacating Sanctions Award, and Remanding (Unpublished Disposition, June 25, 2025)

Jesusa and Wayne divorced in 2012 after a long-term marriage. Wayne was ordered to pay Jesusa $1,000/month in alimony for 15 years. Wayne failed to pay voluntarily, leading Jesusa to obtain garnishment orders and attorney fees. In 2021, Wayne’s arrears were reduced to judgment ($45,680.68), and he was ordered to pay $300/month toward Jesusa’s attorney fees. Wayne filed a motion in 2023 to eliminate or reduce alimony, arguing that his veterans’ disability benefits could not be considered and that Jesusa’s income now exceeded his. The district court (Mary Perry) granted Wayne’s motion, excluded his disability benefits from income calculations, terminated alimony retroactively, recalculated arrears, and imposed NRCP 11 sanctions against Jesusa.

Jesusa appealed, arguing that the district court erred in excluding veterans’ disability benefits from alimony calculations; that the court improperly recalculated arrears from a final 2014 order; that the NRCP 11 sanctions award against her was improper; and that the case should be reassigned on remand.

In Nevada, Veterans’ disability benefits may be considered in alimony determinations. Courts may not sua sponte revisit final judgments without notice or violate res judicata. NRCP 11 sanctions require notice, a hearing, and specific findings. Reassignment may be warranted to preserve the appearance of justice.

The Court of Appeals Reversed the judgment terminating alimony, vacated the sanctions award, and remanded the case with instructions to reassign it to a different judge. The Court held that the Veterans’ disability benefits may be considered in alimony determinations; that the court’s sua sponte recalculation of arrears violated res judicata and due process; that the sanctions were imposed without proper notice or findings; and that reassignment was warranted to preserve the appearance of justice.

 

2.    Sorget (F/K/A Emde) v. Austin, No. 89474-COA, Order of Affirmance (Unpublished Disposition, June 27, 2025)

Sorget and Austin were never married but share two minor children. In 2020, the district court awarded joint legal custody and Sorget primary physical custody. In 2021, Sorget was permitted to relocate to Michigan with the children due to medical needs. Austin alleged that Sorget denied him parenting time, and failed to consult him on medical and educational decisions. In 2023, Austin filed a motion to modify custody and return the children to Las Vegas. The district court (Dedree Butler) held a multi-day evidentiary hearing and issued temporary orders placing the children with Austin. Sorget later moved back to Las Vegas, but failed to properly request expedited consideration of her custody motion. The district court found a substantial change in circumstances and awarded Austin primary physical custody.

Sorget appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in modifying physical custody; that the court improperly considered the best interest of the children under NRS 125C.0035(4); and that the child support award to Austin was inappropriate.

In Nevada, custody modifications require a showing of substantial change in circumstances and that the change serves the child’s best interest (Romano v. Romano). Courts must consider the statutory best interest factors under NRS 125C.0035(4). Appellate courts do not reweigh evidence or reassess credibility determinations.

The Court of Appeals Affirmed that the district court’s custody and child support determinations holding the district court did not abuse its discretion, that the court made detailed findings under the statutory best interest factors, and that Sorget failed to present a cogent argument against the child support award.

 

3.    Polk v. Rowland, No. 86937-COA, Order of Reversal and Remand (Unpublished Disposition, July 2, 2025)

Polk and Rowland married in 2007 and divorced in 2021. At the July 2021 hearing, the parties agreed on child custody and financial issues, but not on the value or distribution of the marital residence. The district court (Mary Perry) orally pronounced the parties divorced, but stated that the divorce would not be final until the entry of a written decree. The written decree (entered December 2021) directed Rowland to refinance or sell the marital residence within 90 days, and to pay Polk her share of the equity. Rowland refinanced in May 2022 using a pre-decree appraisal of ($360,000) instead of the refinance appraisal of ($430,000). Polk filed a motion to enforce the decree, arguing for valuation based on the refinance date. The district court denied the motion, finding that the marital community ended with the oral pronouncement of divorce in July 2021.

Polk appealed, arguing that the district court erred in finding the marital community ended upon oral pronouncement of divorce; that the court abused its discretion by failing to value the marital residence based on the refinance date; and that the court’s reliance on EDCR 5.712(c) to determine the end of the marital community was improper.

In Nevada, a marital community ends upon entry of a written divorce decree, not oral pronouncement. Courts must make specific findings supported by substantial evidence and follow binding precedent. Minute orders are not binding unless they reflect complete and agreed-upon material terms.

The Court of Appeals Reversed and Remanded the holding that the marital community ends upon entry of the written decree, not oral pronouncement. The court failed to make findings based on the correct valuation date. EDCR 5.712(c) does not govern termination of the marital community.

 

4.    Posey v. Walkenhorst (N/K/A Bond), No. 89500-COA, Order Affirming in Part and Vacating in Part (Unpublished Disposition, July 3,2025)

Posey and Bond share a minor child, L.P., and previously agreed to joint legal custody, with Bond having sole legal custody over religious upbringing. In June 2024, Bond filed a motion seeking sole legal custody for the limited purpose of taking L.P. to a child psychiatrist after L.P. made concerning statements about self-harm. Posey agreed that L.P. needed mental health care but preferred starting with a therapist. Bond’s motion requested the court to “break the tie” under Kelley v. Kelley and determine which treatment plan was in L.P.’s best interest. The district court (Bridget Robb) granted Bond sole legal custody over all mental health decisions, not just the limited relief she requested.

Posey appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by granting Bond sole legal custody over all mental health decisions; and that the district court improperly exercised discretion in permitting Bond to take L.P. to a child psychiatrist.

In Nevada, legal custody decisions must be based on the child’s best interest and cannot be modified without specific notice and the opportunity to be heard. Courts have discretion to resolve joint custody disputes, but must stay within the scope of relief requested.

The Court of Appeals Affirmed in Part (psychiatrist visit); Vacated in Part (broad legal custody modification); and Remanded for further proceedings, holding that the district court exceeded the relief requested and violated Posey’s due process rights, and that the district court properly exercised discretion in permitting the psychiatrist visit.

 

5.    Anderson-Alexander v. The Eight Judicial District Court, and Moten, Real Party in Interest, No. 90926-COA, Order Denying Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandamus or Prohibition (Unpublished Disposition, July 11, 2025)

Anderson-Alexander and Moten share custody of a minor child. Anderson-Alexander challenged a district court (Amy Masstin) custody order via an emergency writ petition. She sought either a writ of mandamus (to compel a legal duty), or a writ of prohibition (to stop proceedings allegedly beyond jurisdiction). The petition was filed while an appeal of the custody order was already pending in Docket No. 90813-COA.

The issue before the Court of Appeal was whether extraordinary writ relief (mandamus or prohibition) is appropriate when a petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law via a pending appeal.

In Nevada, extraordinary writ relief is discretionary and unavailable when a petitioner has an adequate legal remedy, such as a pending appeal. (See NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330; D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 123 Nev. 468 (2007)).

The Court of Appeals denied the writ petition because the petitioner had an adequate legal remedy through her pending appeal.

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