New Cases Added to MLAW: five COA Unpublished: Mizrachi, Cobian, Douglas, Alheiyal, and Hascheff

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

1.    Mizrachi v. Mizrachi, No. 86508-COA, Order of Affirmance (Unpublished Disposition, Oct. 22, 2024)

Dory and Eliezer (“Eli”) divorced in 2012 and were awarded joint legal and physical custody of their child, J.M. In 2020, Eli moved to modify custody, alleging Dory physically and emotionally mistreated J.M. and left him unsupervised at night. Dory denied the allegations and raised past domestic violence claims against Eli. The district court ordered therapy for J.M. and held multiple evidentiary hearings. Judge Perry initially presided but later recused herself due to what was characterized as the judge’s “improper request” to Dory’s counsel to assist the judge’s law clerk with a matter. Judge Throne took over. Judge Throne reviewed the record and conducted further hearings. She denied Dory’s request to admit testimony from J.M.’s new therapist and excluded evidence of pre-divorce domestic violence. The court found a substantial change in circumstances and awarded Eli primary physical custody, maintaining joint legal custody.

Dory appealed, arguing that the March 2022 order was a final custody determination; Judge Perry erred in recusing herself; Judge Throne should have restarted the evidentiary hearing; the district court abused its discretion in modifying custody; the district court abused its discretion in excluding evidence of pre-divorce domestic violence; and the district court abused its discretion in excluding testimony from J.M.’s new therapist.

In Nevada, custody modifications require a substantial change in circumstances and must serve the child’s best interest. The law-of-the-case doctrine prevents successor judges from revisiting prior rulings absent new evidence or legal error. Exclusion of evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion and must be shown to be prejudicial to warrant reversal.

The Court of Appeals held the March 2022 order was temporary and not a final custody determination; Judge Perry’s recusal was proper and unopposed; Judge Throne complied with NRCP 63 and was familiar with the record; the custody modification was supported by substantial evidence and in J.M.’s best interest; even if exclusion was in error, it was harmless; and the law-of-the-case doctrine applied, and Dory failed to justify revisiting the prior ruling.

 

2.    Cobian v. Ramirez, No. 88076-COA, Order of Affirmance (Unpublished Disposition, Oct. 18, 2024)

Cobian and Ramirez had a child, L.R., in 2015. A Utah court awarded Cobian sole legal and physical custody, with Ramirez receiving parenting time and paying child support. Both parties later moved to Las Vegas, Nevada. In 2021, Cobian relocated to California with L.R. without Ramirez’s consent or a court order. Ramirez petitioned to register the Utah custody order in Nevada and sought custody modification. Cobian reported Ramirez for abuse, prompting a temporary emergency order in California. The allegations were unsubstantiated, and jurisdiction returned to Nevada. The district court (Gregory G. Gordon) held multiple hearings, eventually awarding Ramirez primary physical custody, finding Cobian had interfered with parenting time, made false abuse allegations, and was uncooperative.

Cobian appealed, arguing that the district court erred in registering the Utah custody order in Nevada; the district court should have declined jurisdiction in favor of California as a more convenient forum; the district court abused its discretion in modifying custody and ordering L.R.’s relocation to Nevada; the contempt finding against him for violating the custody order was improper; and the case should have been reassigned to a different judge due to alleged bias.

In Nevada, custody modifications require a substantial change in circumstances and must serve the child’s best interest. Jurisdiction under the UCCJEA is determined by the child’s home state and other statutory factors (NRS 125A.305). Relocation decisions must be supported by a good faith reason and serve the child’s best interest (NRS 125C.007). Contempt requires clear and convincing evidence of willful disobedience of a court order. Judicial bias must stem from an extrajudicial source and not from rulings made during the case.

The Court of Appeals held that Nevada had subject matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA; the district court properly retained jurisdiction; California was not a more appropriate forum; the custody modification and relocation were supported by substantial evidence and in L.R.’s best interest; the contempt finding was supported by clear and convincing evidence; and Cobian failed to demonstrate judicial bias warranting reassignment.

 

3.    Douglas v. Douglas, No. 86888-COA, Order of Affirmance (Unpublished Disposition, Oct. 11, 2024) – Summary

Christopher and Joy were married in 2015 and had one minor child. In 2022, Christopher filed for divorce and sought primary physical custody. Joy, already residing in Iowa, requested primary custody and permission to relocate the child. Both parties requested attorney fees under NRS 18.010(2)(b); Christopher also cited EDCR 5.219. After an evidentiary hearing, the court (Michele Mercer) awarded Christopher primary custody and denied Joy’s relocation, alimony, and transportation cost requests. The court found both parties prevailed on some issues and denied both parties’ requests for attorney fees under NRS 18.010(2)(b) and EDCR 5.219. However, the court found Joy was entitled to attorney fees under NRS 125.040 and ordered her to submit a memorandum of fees and costs.

Christopher appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in denying his request for attorney fees and costs under NRS 18.010(2)(b) and EDCR 5.219.

In Nevada, attorney fees may be awarded under NRS 18.010(2)(b) only if the opposing party’s claims were groundless or harassing. A party’s failure to prevail does not, by itself, justify an award of attorney fees. Courts have broad discretion in awarding or denying fees, and their decisions will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence.

The Court of Appeals held the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Christopher’s request for attorney fees and costs.

 

4.    Alheiyal v. Swensen, No. 88055-COA, Order of Affirmance (Unpublished Disposition, Oct. 14, 2024)

Alaa (Syrian citizen) and Susan (U.S. citizen) married in the UAE in 2013 and had a child in 2014. In 2017, Susan and the child moved to the U.S., settling in Nevada in 2019. Alaa remained in the UAE. In May 2020, Susan filed for divorce and custody in Nevada. Alaa was served but refused to participate, asserting U.S. law did not apply to him. A default divorce decree was entered in March 2021, awarding joint legal custody, primary physical custody to Susan, and permitting a name change for the child. In October 2023, Alaa moved to set aside the decree, arguing Susan abducted the child and failed to disclose a UAE divorce proceeding. The district court (Amy Mastin and Regina M. McConnell) denied the motion, finding Nevada had jurisdiction and Alaa had declined to participate despite being served.

Alaa appealed, arguing that the district court erred in exercising jurisdiction over the custody matter; and the district court abused its discretion in denying Alaa’s motion to set aside the divorce decree under NRCP 60(b), (c), or (d).

Under the UCCJEA, a state has jurisdiction over custody if it is the child’s home state. In Nevada, motions to set aside under NRCP 60(b)(1) must be filed within six months; other grounds must be filed within a reasonable time. Failure to participate in proceedings after proper service and then seeking relief years later is insufficient to set aside a judgment.

The Court of Appeals held that Nevada was the child’s home state under the UCCJEA, and the district court properly exercised jurisdiction; the motion to set aside was untimely and lacked merit under NRCP 60(b)(1), (b)(6), or (d)(3).

 

5.    Hascheff v. Hascheff, No. 86976-COA, Order of Affirmance (Unpublished Disposition, Oct. 11, 2024)

Pierre and Lynda divorced in 2013 under a Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA), which included an indemnification clause and a prevailing party attorney fees clause. In 2018, Pierre was subpoenaed in a trust litigation and later sued for malpractice related to his prior legal work. In 2020, Pierre sought indemnification from Lynda for attorney fees incurred in both the trust litigation and the malpractice case. Lynda filed for declaratory relief, arguing she was not responsible for fees from the trust litigation. The district court (Sandra A. Unsworth) initially found the fees were covered by the MSA but denied recovery based on laches. On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that only fees from the malpractice case were indemnifiable and remanded for further proceedings. On remand, the district court awarded Pierre partial indemnification and found Lynda was the prevailing party entitled to attorney fees. The court awarded Lynda $46,675 in attorney fees but excluded fees from the prior appeal. Pierre appealed, and Lynda cross-appealed.

The issues before The Court of Appeals were (1) Did the district court err in finding Lynda the prevailing party and awarding her attorney fees? (2) Did the district court abuse its discretion in the amount of attorney fees awarded? (3) Did the district court err in denying Lynda appellate attorney fees and allowing Pierre to pay in installments?

In Nevada, a prevailing party need not succeed on every issue but must obtain significant relief. Courts must consider Brunzell factors when awarding attorney fees. Appellate courts defer to district court discretion unless findings are clearly erroneous or unsupported by substantial evidence.

The Court of Appeals held that the district court properly found Lynda was the prevailing party; the attorney fee award was reasonable and supported by the record; the court acted within its discretion in denying appellate fees and setting a payment plan.

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