1. Gabroy v. Gabroy, No. 87387-COA, Order of Affirmance (Unpublished Disposition, Nov. 20, 2024)
James and Pamela were married for 18 years. James was a physician who sold his practice in 2016 for $800,000 and later attempted to reopen it. In 2019, Pamela filed for divorce, citing incompatibility and later alleging marital waste. James paid $800,000 to Queenie Manuel, a consultant hired to help reopen his practice. Manuel disappeared with the money. Pamela claimed she was unaware of the payment. James did not report the loss on his tax return. At trial, James failed to provide documentation or credible testimony justifying the payment. The district court (Charles Hoskin) found the payment constituted marital waste and awarded Pamela $1,150/month in alimony for five years.
James appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in finding marital waste; that the district court erred in awarding Pamela alimony without properly applying the statutory factors; and that the court’s reference to a non-existent joint preliminary injunction (JPI) was a reversible error.
In Nevada, a court may make an unequal distribution of community property if one spouse commits marital waste. Alimony awards must be based on the factors listed in NRS 125.150(9). Harmless errors that do not affect a party’s substantial rights do not warrant reversal (NRCP 61).
The Court of Appeals held that the court’s finding of marital waste was supported by substantial evidence; that the court adequately considered the relevant statutory factors under NRS 125.150(9); and that any reference to a JPI was harmless error and did not affect the outcome.
2. Clarke v. White, No. 86068-COA & No. 86069-COA, Order of Affirmance (Unpublished Disposition, Nov. 15, 2024)
Clarke and White never married, but share a daughter, T.C., born in 2016. In April 2020,White alleged that Clarke assaulted her with a knife and choked her. She obtained a temporary protection order (TPO) and moved to Ohio with T.C. Clarke filed for custody in June 2020 but could not locate White. He served her by publication, and a default decree was entered in October 2021, awarding him sole custody. Clarke later located White and T.C. in Nevada and, with law enforcement, took custody of T.C. in March 2022. White immediately filed a motion to set aside the default decree under NRCP 60(b), claiming she was unaware of the proceedings. The district court (Michele Mercer) granted the motion, set aside the default decree, and awarded White temporary custody. After an evidentiary hearing, the court awarded White primary physical custody and joint legal custody in a new decree.
Clarke appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in setting aside the default custody decree; that the district court erred in awarding White primary physical custody after finding she had abducted the child; and that the district court’s finding of domestic violence against Clarke was not supported by clear and convincing evidence.
In Nevada, NRCP 60(b)(6) allows relief from a judgment for “any other reason that justifies relief,” especially in extraordinary circumstances like child custody. A parent who abducts a child may rebut the presumption against custody by showing the act was to protect against domestic violence (NRS 125C.0035(7)). Courts must consider the best interest of the child in all custody decisions (NRS 125C.0035(4)).
The Court of Appeals held that the district court acted within its discretion under NRCP 60(b)(6) and in the best interest of the child; that the court properly found that White rebutted the statutory presumption against custody due to abduction; and that the finding of domestic violence was supported by substantial evidence, including credible testimony from White.
3. Crosier v. Crosier, No. 87206-COA, Order of Reversal and Remand (Unpublished Disposition, Oct. 31, 2024)
Jennifer and Garrett divorced in Utah in 2019, but no final custody order was issued. Jennifer moved to Nevada with the children; Garrett moved to Colorado. In 2022, Jennifer filed for custody in Nevada, alleging that Garrett had a history of child abuse and domestic violence. Two of the children reported physical abuse by Garrett in interviews with the Family Mediation Center (FMC). At a one-day evidentiary hearing, the district court (Paul Gaudet) admitted the FMC report but did not inquire into the abuse allegations or domestic violence. The court issued a custody decree awarding joint legal custody, primary physical custody of two children to Jennifer, and primary physical custody of the youngest child to Garrett in Colorado. The decree lacked findings on the statutory best interest factors under NRS 125C.0035(4) and did not address domestic violence or relocation.
Jennifer appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by failing to make findings under NRS 125C.0035(4); that the court erred by failing to address allegations of domestic violence; and that the relocation of the youngest child to Colorado was not properly analyzed.
In Nevada, courts must make specific findings on all best interest factors in custody cases (NRS 125C.0035(4). Domestic violence must be considered in custody determinations and may trigger a rebuttable presumption against custody (NRS 125C.0035(5)). Relocation must be analyzed under Druckman when no prior custody order exists.
The Court of Appeals held that the district court failed to make required findings on the twelve best interest factors; that the court did not evaluate domestic violence allegations despite evidence and statutory requirements; that the court failed to assess whether relocation to Colorado was in the child’s best interest; and that this was an initial custody proceeding, not a modification of custody. The Court Reversed and Remanded the custody decree and post-decree order.
4. Moore v. Moten, No. 88172-COA, Order of Affirmance (Unpublished Disposition, Oct. 21, 2024)
Moore and Moten, parents of three children, shared joint legal and physical custody under a 2022 parenting agreement. After Moore was arrested for domestic violence against Moten at their children’s school, Moten filed a motion for an order to show cause and later sought primary custody. Moore filed a countermotion for contempt against Moten. The district court (Michele Mercer) denied both contempt motions, but held an evidentiary hearing on custody modification. Both parties appeared pro se and relied on previously submitted exhibits. Moore objected only to a video of the domestic violence incident, citing her pending criminal case. The court found a substantial change in circumstances and awarded Moten primary physical custody, citing Moore’s domestic violence and interference with sibling relationships.
Moore appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by considering allegedly improperly disclosed evidence and hearsay; and that the court violated Moore’s constitutional rights by leading the questioning and limiting her ability to confront witnesses.
In Nevada, failure to object at trial generally waives appellate review of evidentiary issues. The Confrontation Clause does not apply in civil proceedings. Courts may lead questioning in civil hearings, especially when parties are pro se, without violating due process.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Moore waived most evidentiary objections by failing to raise them at trial; that the Confrontation Clause does not apply in civil proceedings, and that Moore did not request to cross-examine witnesses or object to the hearing format.
