New Cases Added to MLAW: Five COA Unpublished: Davis, Khalifah, In the Matter of J.J.M.R.; J.M.J.R. and J.M.J.R., Minors, Follett, and Pelz

by | May 6, 2026 | Nevada Family Law Appeals | 0 comments

1.    Davis v. Trotta, No. 90587-COA, Order of Affirmance (Unpublished Disposition, April 3, 2026)

Daniel E. Davis and Kortney Trotta divorced in 2019, initially sharing joint legal and joint physical custody of their two minor children. After subsequent modifications, the parties entered a 2022 stipulation awarding Trotta primary physical custody and Davis parenting time every other weekend. In October 2024, Trotta moved to modify custody, parenting time, holidays, and child support, alleging that Davis repeatedly failed to attend the children’s medical appointments and educational meetings, canceled parenting time, and minimally participated in the children’s lives. Davis did not oppose the motion and did not appear at the hearing. After hearing Trotta’s testimony, the District Court (Mari Parlade) awarded Trotta sole legal and primary physical custody, significantly reduced Davis’s parenting time, modified holidays, and awarded fees and costs. Davis later moved to set aside the order under NRCP 60(b), asserting excusable neglect due to attorney misconduct and lack of notice. The District Court denied the motion.

Davis appealed, challenging the denial of his NRCP 60(b) motion. He argued that his failure to oppose and attend the custody modification hearing resulted from excusable neglect, claiming his former counsel failed to withdraw properly, failed to oppose the motion, and did not inform him of the hearing date, thereby depriving him of a merits-based determination.

In Nevada, relief from a judgment under NRCP 60(b)(1) requires a showing of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Courts apply the Yochum factors: (1) promptness, (2) absence of intent to delay, (3) lack of procedural knowledge, and (4) good faith, while also considering the policy favoring decisions on the merits. District courts have broad discretion in ruling on NRCP 60(b) motions, and appellate courts defer to credibility determinations. Attorney neglect generally does not constitute excusable neglect unless it amounts to effective abandonment.

The Court of Appeals held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Davis’s NRCP 60(b) motion, and  the custody modification order was not a default judgment, as the District Court conducted an evidentiary hearing, found Trotta’s testimony credible, and made findings under NRS 125C.0035(4).

AFFIRMED.

 

2.    Khalifah v. The Eighth Judicial District Court (White) and Monique Hollings, Real Party in Interest, No. 92105-COA, Order Denying Petition (Unpublished Disposition, April 10, 2026)

Hakeem Khalifah was involved in an ongoing child custody proceeding in the Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County. During those proceedings, the District Court (Adriana White) entered an order to show cause, apparently relating to Khalifah’s conduct in the custody matter. Khalifah did not pursue a direct appeal of that order and instead sought immediate appellate intervention through an extraordinary writ.

Khalifah, acting pro se, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition in the Nevada Court of Appeals. He challenged the District Court’s order to show cause, asserting that the District Court acted improperly and asking the Appellate Court to either compel or prohibit further action by the District Court.

In Nevada, a writ of mandamus may issue to compel the performance of an act the law requires as a duty of office (NRS 34.160) or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion. A writ of prohibition may issue to restrain a lower court from acting without or in excess of its jurisdiction (NRS 34.320). Extraordinary writ relief is discretionary, and the petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that such relief is warranted. Writ relief is not a substitute for a direct appeal.

The Court of Appeals held that Khalifah failed to demonstrate entitlement to extraordinary writ relief.

DENIED.

 

3.    In the Matter of J.J.M.R.; J.M.J.R. and J.M.J.R., Minors; Jacoby v. The Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct. (Gibson); and Dept. of Fam. Svs. and the Minors, Real Parties in Interest, No. 92271-COA, Order Denying Petition (Unpublished Disposition, April 14, 2026)

This case arose from a protective custody action involving three minor children, J.J.M.R., J.M.J.R., and J.M.J.R. During the juvenile proceedings, the Eighth Judicial District Court (David Gibson, Jr.) entered a placement order concerning the minors’ custody. Jacoby Robinson, whose relationship to the minors is not detailed in the order, objected to that placement decision and sought immediate appellate intervention rather than pursuing relief through the ordinary juvenile court process.

Robinson, as petitioner, filed an original petition for a writ of mandamus in the Nevada Court of Appeals. He challenged the District Court’s placement order in the protective custody case and asked the appellate court to compel or control the District Court’s actions regarding the minors’ placement.

In Nevada, a writ of mandamus may issue to compel the performance of an act the law requires as a duty of office (NRS 34.160) or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion by a lower court. Extraordinary writ relief is discretionary, not a matter of right, and the petitioner bears the burden of showing that such relief is warranted. Writs are not substitutes for ordinary appellate review.

The Court of Appeals held that Robinson failed to demonstrate entitlement to extraordinary relief.

DENIED.

 

4.    Follett v. Follett, No. 90905-COA, Order of Affirmance (Unpublished Disposition, April 14, 2026)

Robert Follett and Lisa Follett filed a joint petition for divorce in February 2025. The petition provided that Robert would pay Lisa $1,000 per month in alimony, but it did not specify the start date or duration of the payments. The District Court (Thomas Gregory) entered a divorce decree ratifying and incorporating the alimony terms as written. After entry of the decree, Lisa filed a motion for clarification, asserting that the decree omitted the alimony duration and requested a ten-year alimony term beginning March 1, 2025. Robert opposed and filed a countermotion under NRCP 60(b)(3) to set aside the decree, alleging that Lisa committed fraud by altering the joint petition to include alimony after he signed it. Following an evidentiary hearing, the District Court denied Robert’s fraud claim and clarified the decree to require $1,000 monthly alimony for five years.

Robert appealed, arguing that the District Court erred by granting Lisa’s motion to clarify the alimony provision; by ordering him to pay $1,000 per month in alimony; and by failing to properly consider the statutory alimony factors or evidence presented at the hearing.

The Court of Appeals held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in clarifying and enforcing the alimony provision.

AFFIRMED.

 

5.    Pelz v. Perea, No. 90584-COA, Order of Affirmance (Unpublished Disposition, April 14, 2026)

James Pelz and Brandee Perea share one minor child. Pelz filed a custody action seeking primary physical custody, joint legal custody, permission to homeschool, and later, sought permission to relocate to New York with the child. Perea opposed these requests and counterclaimed for primary physical custody, joint legal custody, and child support, asserting that Pelz’s relocation plan was impulsive and not in the child’s best interest. After an evidentiary hearing, the District Court (Vincent Ochoa) denied Pelz’s relocation request, awarded primary physical custody to Perea, and ordered Pelz to pay child support. Perea then moved for attorney fees and costs arising from the custody litigation. The District Court awarded Perea $21,000 in attorney fees, and Pelz appealed only the fee award.

Pelz’ appeal argued that the District Court abused its discretion by awarding attorney fees. He contended that the income disparity between the parties was modest, that the fee amount was excessive, and that the District Court failed to make sufficient findings regarding the reasonableness of the fees and the necessity of the award.

In Nevada, a District Court’s award of attorney fees is reviewed for abuse of discretion. In family law cases, courts must consider the Brunzell factors when assessing the reasonableness of fees and must also consider the disparity in the parties’ incomes. Attorney fees may be awarded in child custody actions under NRS 125C.250, and may also be awarded under NRS 18.010(2)(b) when claims are brought without reasonable grounds or to harass, though findings under that statute must be supported by the record.

The Court of Appeals held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees to Perea.

AFFIRMED.

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