1. Perkins v. Perkins, No. 89110-COA, Order of Affirmance (Unpublished Disposition, March 16, 2026)
David J. Perkins and Linda Kay Perkins married in 1975 and separated informally in 2007, though no legal proceedings occurred at that time. During the prolonged separation, the parties maintained amicable relations, shared family time with their adult children, and David continued a long term relationship with a girlfriend known to Linda. In 2023, Linda filed for divorce seeking alimony, attorney fees, and division of a marital estate valued at over $2 million. During the divorce proceedings, Linda alleged marital dissipation, asserting that David used community funds to pay for two international vacations with his girlfriend in 2023, including one taken after the court entered a joint preliminary injunction prohibiting unauthorized use of community property. After trial, the District Court (Charles Hoskin) awarded Linda permanent alimony, ordered an unequal division of community property to compensate for marital waste, and later awarded Linda attorney fees related to David’s post-decree motions.
David appealed, challenging the award of permanent alimony to Linda, the finding of marital dissipation and resulting unequal division of community property, and the post-decree award of attorney fees and costs entered against him. After Linda passed away during the appeal, her estate—represented by their son—was substituted as the respondent.
In Nevada, alimony determinations are governed by NRS 125.150(9) and reviewed for abuse of discretion, with factual findings upheld if supported by substantial evidence. Community property must be divided equally unless a compelling reason, such as marital dissipation, justifies an unequal distribution under NRS 125.150(1)(b). Marital dissipation may be found when one spouse uses community assets for selfish purposes unrelated to the marriage at a time when the marriage is in serious jeopardy. Attorney fee awards are discretionary and must reflect consideration of the Brunzell factors, though explicit findings on each factor are not required if the record shows they were considered.
The Court of Appeals held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in awarding permanent alimony to Linda; that substantial evidence supported the district court’s finding of marital dissipation; and that the award of attorney fees and costs related to David’s unsuccessful post-decree motions was supported by the record and reflected appropriate consideration of the Brunzell factors, even without express written findings.
AFFIRMED.
2. Tran v. Trinh, No. 90510-COA, Order Affirming (DOCKET NO. 90510-COA) and Reversing and Remanding (DOCKET NO. 90909-COA) (Unpublished Disposition, March 5, 2026)
Eric Nhan Tran and Rosa Danh Trinh are the parents of a minor child, Z.T., born in May 2023. After separating in March 2024, both parties filed competing custody complaints. A temporary custody order awarded Tran parenting time on weekends and deferred child support due to Tran’s unemployment, pending his securing new employment. At a September 2024 calendar call, Trinh’s former counsel suggested that the parties might agree to joint physical custody, but no parenting schedule was agreed upon. Trinh later retained new counsel and clarified that she never consented to joint physical custody. At the evidentiary hearing, the District Court (Charles Hoskin) heard testimony regarding domestic conflict, harassment during custody exchanges, and the parties’ inability to cooperate. The court ultimately awarded joint legal custody, primary physical custody to Trinh, set Tran’s child support obligation, and denied Tran’s request to enforce an alleged custody agreement. The court later awarded Trinh attorney fees.
Tran appealed, arguing that the District Court erred by refusing to enforce an alleged agreement for joint physical custody; by awarding primary physical custody to Trinh based on findings he claimed were unsupported by evidence; and by awarding attorney fees against him under NRS 18.010(2)(b).
In Nevada, child custody determinations rest within the sound discretion of the District Court, and the best interest of the child is the sole consideration. Custody agreements are governed by contract principles, but no agreement exists unless the parties agree on all material terms, including the parenting schedule. Even when parties stipulate to custody terms, courts are not bound by those agreements if they conflict with the child’s best interest. Attorney fees under NRS 18.010(2)(b) may be awarded only if the District Court finds that a claim or defense was frivolous or brought to harass, and such findings must be expressly made.
The Court of Appeals held that substantial evidence supported the District Court’s finding that no enforceable agreement for joint physical custody existed because the parties never agreed on a material term—the parenting schedule—and Trinh did not personally consent; that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Trinh primary physical custody. However, the court found that the District Court erred in awarding attorney fees under NRS 18.010(2)(b) because it failed to make the required finding that Tran’s motions were frivolous or intended to harass.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
3. Curcio v. Hemmings, No. 90758-COA, Order Dismissing Appeal in Part and Reversing and Remanding (Unpublished Disposition, March 5, 2026)
Francine Curcio and Ernest Hemmings divorced in 2013 and share a minor child, H.H., born in 2009. Under the divorce decree, Curcio had primary physical custody. In 2021, the parties stipulated through mediation to a modified arrangement in which Curcio retained primary physical custody and Hemmings exercised extended weekend parenting time. In December 2024, Curcio moved to modify custody, alleging that Hemmings had engaged in inappropriate behavior toward H.H., including restricting food and making negative comments about her body. Hemmings opposed and countermoved, accusing Curcio of interfering with his relationship with the child. The District Court (Bill Henderson) treated the matter as primarily “therapeutic,” ordered counseling, and allowed H.H. to exercise teenage discretion regarding visits. At a May 2025 status check—without holding an evidentiary hearing—the District Court relied heavily on a therapist’s recommendation and modified custody to a week on, week off joint physical custody schedule.
Curcio appealed, arguing that the District Court abused its discretion by modifying custody without holding an evidentiary hearing, by failing to make specific best interest findings, and by improperly relying on a therapist’s recommendation rather than judicial fact finding. She also challenged the suggestion that a parenting agreement existed.
In Nevada, the best interest of the child is the sole consideration in custody determinations (NRS 125C.0035(1)). Before modifying custody, a District Court must hold an evidentiary hearing, evaluate all NRS 125C.0035(4) best interest factors, and make written findings tying those factors to the custody decision. A court abuses its discretion by modifying custody based solely on pleadings, arguments of counsel, or professional recommendations, and may not delegate its decision making authority to therapists or other professionals.
The Court of Appeals held that the District Court abused its discretion by modifying child custody without an evidentiary hearing and without making findings under NRS 125C.0035(4), improperly relied on a therapist’s recommendation, and erroneously suggested that a parenting agreement existed when the record showed no such agreement.
DISMISSED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
4. Monday v. Christian, No. 90704-COA, Order of Reversal and Remand (Unpublished Disposition, March 30, 2026)
Lawana Monday and Maurice Christian share a minor child born in 2020. A prior custody decree awarded the parties joint legal and joint physical custody, and adopted their stipulated parenting time schedule, with no child support owed by either party. Christian later moved to modify custody after relocating to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, seeking extended out-of-state parenting time. Monday opposed, asserting that Christian had not exercised parenting time for over a year, and requested child support.
After an evidentiary hearing, the District Court (Regina McConnell) issued an order modifying custody to give Monday primary physical custody, and granting Christian out-of-state parenting time during summers and alternating holidays. The court also modified child support, reducing the guideline amount to account for transportation costs. The order, however, contained no findings under NRS 125C.0035(4).
Monday appealed, arguing that the District Court abused its discretion by modifying the parenting time schedule and child support order without making specific best interest findings, by failing to address her concerns about the child’s developmental needs and Christian’s lack of involvement, and by inadequately supporting the child support adjustment.
In Nevada, the best interest of the child is the sole consideration in custody determinations (NRS 125C.0035(1)). When modifying custody or parenting time, a District Court must consider and set forth specific findings on the NRS 125C.0035(4) factors and tie those findings to the custody decision. Orders lacking such findings are facially insufficient for appellate review. Child support modifications tied to parenting time and transportation costs must be reassessed if the underlying parenting time determination is reversed.
The Court of Appeals held that the District Court abused its discretion by modifying parenting time without making the required best interest findings under NRS 125C.0035(4).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
5. Marquart v. Marquart, No. 90708-COA, Order of Affirmance (Unpublished Disposition, March 30, 2026)
Ronald Christopher Marquart and Vernieta Lynne Marquart were married in 2000. In August 2024, the parties filed a joint petition for divorce that included a stipulation requiring Ronald to pay Vernieta specified monthly alimony. The District Court (Kristin Luis) entered a decree adopting the parties’ stipulation and ordering alimony accordingly. In January 2025, Vernieta moved to enforce the decree, alleging that Ronald failed to pay alimony. Ronald opposed and filed a countermotion to modify alimony, asserting that his income had decreased, and that his alimony obligation should be reduced. After a hearing, the District Court partially granted Ronald relief by limiting alimony to a 12-year duration, but otherwise denied modification of the monthly amount.
Ronald appealed, arguing that the District Court abused its discretion by denying further modification of his alimony obligation. He claimed; (1) his income had decreased sufficiently to constitute changed circumstances, and (2) that the District Court improperly considered his military disability benefits when evaluating his ability to pay alimony.
In Nevada, alimony may be modified upon a showing of changed circumstances under NRS 125.150(8) and (11)(b). A 20 percent or more change in gross monthly income is deemed sufficient to require review of an alimony award under NRS 125.150(12). District Courts have broad discretion in alimony determinations, and Appellate Courts will not disturb those rulings if they are supported by substantial evidence. Although NRS 125.165 prohibits the direct division of military disability benefits as alimony, courts may consider the existence and value of those benefits as part of a holistic assessment of a party’s financial circumstances. Appellants bear the burden of providing an adequate appellate record, including necessary transcripts.
The Court of Appeals held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying further modification of Ronald’s alimony obligation, and that the District Court properly considered Ronald’s military disability benefits when evaluating his financial circumstances, as Nevada law allows consideration—but not division—of such benefits in alimony determinations.
AFFIRMED.
- New Cases Added to MLAW: 5 COA Unpublished: Stumbo, Savard, Hamdan, Summit, and Belen - May 11, 2026
- 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 - May 6, 2026
- New Cases Added to MLAW: Five COA Unpublished: Perkins, Tran, Curcio, Monday, and Marquart - May 4, 2026