Franklin v. Franklin, No. 84334, Order Affirming in Part and Reversing in Part (Unpublished Disposition, Dec. 4, 2023)
Ashley Franklin and John Franklin have two children. Ashley filed for divorce in 2019. The district court (Mastin) ordered joint physical custody, John to pay $300 per month in alimony for 36 months, Ashley’s promissory note for living expenses to be community debt, Ashley’s promissory note for attorney fees to not be community debt, John to pay $3,400 as an offset for an unequal division, and found that Ashley lacked credibility and failed to support the presumption against joint physical custody.
The district court denied Ashley’s reconsideration motion and awarded John attorney fees without explaining its reasoning. Ashley appealed as to the child custody, division of assets and debts, the alimony award, and the award of attorney fees to John. John cross-appealed as to the district court’s finding that the promissory note for living expenses was community debt.
The Supreme Court concluded that the district court properly awarded joint physical custody. The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Ashley’s domestic violence allegations were not supported by clear and convincing evidence. While the Court found that the district court abused its discretion by excluding photos of Ashley’s injuries, the erroneous exclusion was found to be harmless.
Furthermore, the district court acted within its discretion in dividing community property and debts and did not abuse its discretion in awarding alimony. However, the SC found the district court to have abused its discretion in awarding John attorney fees on Ashley’s motion for reconsideration.
Justice Bell dissented and would have concluded that the district court abused its discretion in finding that the domestic violence allegations were not supported by clear and convincing evidence. She would have reversed and remanded the child custody determination for the district court to engage in the full NRS 125C.003(1)(c) analysis.
In re: Guardianship of Shively, No. 85871, Order of Affirmance (Unpublished Disposition, Jan. 30, 2024)
Tiffany Shively-Busse is the guardian for her mother, Drena Shivley. Drena is represented by the Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada. Tiffany filed an accounting and a petition for attorney fees with the district court (Marquis) pursuant to NRS 159.344. She attached attorney billing ledgers containing partial redactions in the descriptions of 15 of the 44 time entries, based upon attorney-client privilege.
At a hearing, Tiffany offered to let the district court review in camera an unredacted billing ledger so that the district court could determine whether the objected-to entries were privileged. Drena objected, contending that such an in-camera review would be “improper” because it would limit the ability of counsel to advocate for her.
The district court found that the redacted billing entries provided sufficient detail to grant the request for attorney fees and costs. Drena appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed. The SC concluded that the district court was still able to determine the general purpose of each task, even if it did not know the exact contents of the task.
Furthermore, the SC was not persuaded that due process entitled Drena to review the unredacted billing statements.
Kemp v. Turqueza, No. 86347, Order of Affirmance (Unpublished Disposition, Jan. 31, 2024)
There was a custody dispute over Z.K. who was born in the Philippines to an American father, Herman Kemp, and a Filipina mother, Flordelaine Centeno. Kemp filed a complaint for child custody. Centeno moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting that Nevada’s courts lacked jurisdiction over Z.K.
The district court (Ochoa) concluded that it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed Kemp’s complaint. Kemp appealed.
The Supreme Court affirmed. The SC found that the district court followed the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) scheme. It limits the authority over custody determinations to one court, which is usually the court in the child’s “home state.”
The SC concluded that the district court properly determined that the Philippines was Z.K.’s home state due to its conclusion that Z.K.’s absence from the Philippines during the six-month UCCJEA window was temporary.
Brofman v. Fiore, No. 83807 and 83865, Order Affirming in Part, Vacating in Part and Remanding (Unpublished Disposition, Feb. 15, 2024)
These are consolidated appeals regarding custody of the parties’ one child. Gina Fiore filed a motion to establish custody and Douglas Brofman responded to relocate with the child. The district court (Throne) denied Brofman’s motion and awarded the parties joint legal and physical custody. The district court also resolved the issue of school choice, awarded Fiore attorney fees and costs, and sanctioned Brofman.
The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and dismissed in part, but the Supreme Court vacated the COA’s order.
The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of Brofman’s relocation motion, its decision regarding school choice, its decision to impute an income to Brofman when determining child support, its denial of Brofman’s motion for a new trial, its award of attorney fees to Fiore, and its sanctions on Brofman.
However, the SC concluded that the district court erred when it found that Brofman’s pleading as to loans he allegedly made to Fiore was not adequate. This issue was remanded for the district court to consider Brofman’s financial claims.
Falconi v. Clark Cty. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., No. 84947, Order Denying Petition for a Writ of Mandamus or Prohibition (Unpublished Disposition, Feb. 21, 2024)
Alexander Falconi filed a petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenging EDCR 5.207 and 5.212 on the basis that they allow family court proceedings to be conducted without permitting public access.
The Supreme Court was not persuaded that extraordinary and discretionary invention was warranted. The Court said that the issues presented in the writ petition are not ripe for their consideration.
Falconi concedes that he has not been precluded from attending a family law proceeding, so there is no hardship to the parties. There needs to be a justiciable controversy for the Court to resolve.
- New Cases added to MLAW: One COA Published: Kragen; One COA Unpublished: Garcia; Two SCT Published: B.S. and Cardenas-Garcia - January 5, 2025
- New Cases added to MLAW: Two SCT Published: L.R.S. and Falconi; Four COA Unpublished: Elmore, Xavier, Wilson, and Maldonado - October 8, 2024
- New Cases added to MLAW: Two SCT Unpublished: Parental Rights as to D.E. & Randall; Three COA Unpublished: Anderson, Carlson, & Teshome - September 26, 2024