New Cases Added to MLAW: four COA Unpublished: Brofman, Young, Allen, and Snyder

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

1.    Brofman v. Fiore, No. 86673-COA, Order Vacating District Court Order, Dismissing Appeal in Part, and Affirming in Part (Unpublished Disposition, December 24, 2024)

Brofman and Fiore were involved in a child custody and support dispute.  Brofman filed a counterclaim seeking repayment for loans allegedly made to Fiore.  The district court (Dawn Throne) initially refused to hear the counterclaim, citing improper pleading and statute of limitations.  The Nevada Supreme Court later ruled that the counterclaim was adequately pleaded and remanded for further proceedings.  During the appeal, the district court allowed Brofman to amend his counterclaim, which included tort and contract claims.  Fiore moved to dismiss the amended claims, and the district court granted the motion, citing statute of limitations, res judicata, and jurisdictional issues.

Brofman appealed, arguing that the district court did not have jurisdiction to allow amendment and dismiss Brofman’s counterclaims while the appeal was pending.

In Nevada, the district court lacks jurisdiction to alter or revisit matters that are part of a pending appeal, and any such actions are void.

The Court of Appeals held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to take action on the counterclaims during the pendency of the appeal.

 

2.    Young v. Young, No. 88014-COA, Order of Affirmance (Unpublished Disposition, December 18, 2024)

Alicia and Richard divorced in 2019 and shared joint legal custody of their child, with Alicia having primary physical custody.  Richard later alleged that Alicia interfered with his parenting time and sought a modification of custody.  The parties initially agreed to retain joint legal custody and for Alicia to retain primary physical custody, with increased visitation for Richard, coordinated by a parenting coordinator.  The parenting coordinator reported that Alicia obstructed reunification efforts and therapy for the child, and recommended temporary placement with Richard.  After a temporary placement and further issues, Richard filed a motion to modify custody.  At the evidentiary hearing, testimony from Richard, Alicia, and the child’s therapist supported claims that Alicia’s behavior negatively impacted the child’s mental health and relationship with Richard. The district court (Michele Mercer) found a substantial change in circumstances and awarded Richard primary physical custody.

Alicia appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by modifying the physical custody arrangement; the district court improperly relied on inadmissible evidence (parenting coordinator’s reports); the court improperly delegated decision-making authority to the parenting coordinator; and the court erred in refusing to disqualify the parenting coordinator.

In Nevada, to modify custody, a party must show:  (1) a substantial change in circumstances affecting the child’s welfare, and (2) that modification is in the child’s best interest.  Courts may not delegate substantive custody decisions but may appoint coordinators for non-substantive matters.

The Court of Appeals held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in modifying custody; any reliance on the parenting coordinator’s reports was harmless error; the court retained ultimate decision-making authority; and the court did not abuse its discretion in declining to disqualify the parenting coordinator.

 

3.    Allen v. Allen, No. 88401-COA, Order of Affirmance (Unpublished Disposition, December 18, 2024)

Valerie (U.S. citizen) and Jashi (Jamaican citizen) married in 2012. Jashi immigrated to the U.S. in 2017 with Valerie’s assistance and moved to Utah and later Las Vegas; Valerie remained in Florida.  The couple separated in 2018, and Jashi filed for divorce in Nevada. Valerie counterclaimed, alleging Jashi used her for immigration purposes and sought alimony and reimbursement for immigration-related expenses.  At trial, the court (Vincent Ochoa) found no evidence of fraud or entitlement to reimbursement or alimony.  The court divided assets and debts, awarding Valerie $8,750 as an equalization payment.  Valerie later filed a motion to set aside the decree, alleging perjury and newly discovered evidence.  The court denied the motion.

Valerie appealed arguing that the district court abused its discretion in dividing community property and denying alimony; that the court erred in denying Valerie’s motion to set aside the decree under NRCP 60(b); and that she was entitled to reimbursement for immigration-related expenses and attorney’s fees.

In Nevada, community property must be equally divided unless compelling reasons justify otherwise (NRS 125.150).  Alimony is discretionary and must be supported by evidence of need (NRS 125.150(1)(a)).   Relief under NRCP 60(b) requires newly discovered evidence that could not have been found with reasonable diligence before trial.

The Court of Appeals held that the district court properly divided the community property and found no basis for alimony; that Valerie failed to show that the evidence was newly discovered or could not have been presented at trial with due diligence; and the court found no legal basis for reimbursement or attorney’s fees.

 

4.    Snyder v. Snyder, No. 88129-COA, Order of Affirmance (Unpublished Disposition, Dec. 12, 2024)

Raymond and Lauara were parties to a divorce proceeding that resulted in a decree adjudicating property and business interests.  Raymond appealed the original decree, and while the appeal was pending, he filed motions alleging fraud by Lauara and her attorneys.  The district court (Kriston N. Hill) declined to hear the motions due to lack of jurisdiction during the appeal.  The Court of Appeals later reversed the decree in part and remanded for further proceedings.  Raymond then filed a new, independent action under NRCP 60(d)(3), again alleging fraud upon the court.  The district court dismissed the independent action with prejudice, citing claim and issue preclusion and failure to state a claim.

Raymond appealed, arguing that the dismissal of his independent action under NRCP 60(d)(3) was improper; that the district court erred in applying claim and issue preclusion; and that he could pursue an independent action while also seeking NRCP 60 relief in the original divorce case.

In Nevada, an independent action under NRCP 60(d) is only available to set aside a final judgment.  A litigant may not simultaneously pursue both an independent action and a motion for relief under NRCP 60 based on the same allegations of fraud.

The Court of Appeals held that the dismissal was proper, though not for the reasons stated by the district court; that the district court erred in applying preclusion because the original decree was not final; and that Raymond could not pursue both an independent action and a motion for relief under NRCP 60 simultaneously.

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