New Cases Added to MLAW: four COA Unpublished: Tyler, White, Rosser, and Sovey

by | Aug 1, 2025 | Nevada Family Law Appeals | 0 comments

1.    Tyler v. Tyler, No. 87916-COA, Order of Reversal and Remand (Unpublished Disposition, March 18, 2025)

Jefferson and Lara are divorced parents of two children. In January 2023, they stipulated to joint custody and agreed on child support terms: Lara would pay Jefferson $811/month based on her $106,500 income and Jefferson’s imputed income of $45,000. In October 2023, Jefferson moved to modify child support, claiming he only earned $1,512/month from part-time work and couldn’t find full-time employment. Lara opposed, arguing for a downward modification due to her reduced income and asserting Jefferson should find more work. Neither party requested the court to impute income to Jefferson, nor did they address the factors under NAC 425.125 for imputation. The district court (Sandra A. Unsworth) entered an order granting the motion to modify child support and decreased Lara’s monthly support obligation.

Jefferson appealed arguing that the district court abused its discretion by imputing income to Jefferson and modifying child support without notice or opportunity for the parties to address the imputation issue.

Under NAC 425.125, a court may impute income to a parent if they are voluntarily underemployed or unemployed without good cause, but must consider specific statutory factors, provide notice,  and the opportunity to be heard.

The Court held that the district court abused its discretion by sua sponte imputing income to Jefferson without notice or a hearing, and without allowing the parties to present arguments or evidence on the issue.

 

2.    White v. White, No. 89138-COA, Order Affirming in Part, Reversing in Part and Remanding (Unpublished Disposition, March 28,2025)

Bryce and Maureen were married in 2015 and executed a prenuptial agreement prior to marriage, which waived alimony and provided for equal responsibility for jointly held debts. In 2023, they executed a postnuptial agreement reaffirming the prenuptial agreement. Bryce filed for divorce in 2024. Maureen challenged the enforceability of the agreements, alleging duress, lack of disclosure, and unconscionability. She also sought alimony, claiming she had quit her job at Bryce’s insistence. The district court (James Todd Russell) found both agreements valid and enforceable but awarded Maureen $500/month in alimony until age 65 to cover health insurance. The court also denied Bryce’s request for reimbursement of Maureen’s share of their 2023 federal tax obligation and post-separation health insurance payments.

Bryce appealed, arguing that the district court erred in awarding alimony despite valid prenuptial and postnuptial agreements waiving it; the district court erred in denying Bryce reimbursement for Maureen’s share of the 2023 tax obligation; and Bryce was entitled to reimbursement for post-separation health insurance payments.

In Nevada, valid prenuptial and postnuptial agreements are enforceable as contracts (NRS 123A.050; Buettner v. Buettner). Alimony may not be awarded if waived in an enforceable premarital agreement (NRS 125.150. Courts must apply the terms of enforceable agreements unless modified in writing. Shared debts under a prenuptial agreement must be divided equally unless otherwise agreed in writing.

The Court of Appeals held that the district court abused its discretion by awarding alimony contrary to the express terms of the agreements; the district court erred by failing to apply the prenuptial agreement’s shared debt provision to the 2023 tax obligation; but that Bryce failed to show that post-separation health insurance payments constituted a shared debt under the agreement.

 

3.    Rosser v. Taylor, No. 87864-COA, Order of Affirmance (Unpublished Disposition, April 23, 2025)

Rosser and Taylor are the unmarried parents of a child, V., born in May 2019. Rosser initially distanced himself from the pregnancy and later filed for joint custody in April 2020. Taylor counterclaimed for sole legal and primary physical custody, child support, and retroactive support. Over three years, Rosser inconsistently exercised parenting time, failed to pay child support, and was uncooperative in discovery. At trial, Rosser stipulated to Taylor having primary physical custody due to his cancer diagnosis but sought joint legal custody and a parenting schedule of four days a week. The district court (Paul M. Gaudet) found Rosser dishonest, uncooperative, and minimally involved in the child’s life. The court awarded Taylor sole legal custody, primary physical custody, child support (including arrears), and attorney fees.

Rosser appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in awarding Taylor sole legal custody; that the parenting time schedule was effectively a de facto award of sole physical custody; that the court erred in imputing income to Rosser and awarding retroactive child support; and that the award of attorney fees to Taylor was improper.

In Nevada, Legal custody may be awarded solely if the presumption for joint custody is rebutted by evidence of inability to cooperate (NRS 125C.002). Physical custody classifications (sole, primary, joint) depend on the amount and quality of parenting time (Roe v. Roe, 139 Nev.). Courts may impute income under NAC 425.125 if a parent is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed without good cause. Retroactive child support may be awarded for up to four years under NRS 125B.030. Attorney fees in custody cases may be awarded under NRS 125C.250 and must consider Brunzell factors.

The Court of Appeals held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding sole legal custody to Taylor; the parenting time schedule did not constitute a de facto award of sole physical custody; the court properly imputed income and awarded retroactive child support; and the attorney fee award was supported by substantial evidence and proper legal standards.

 

4.    Sovey v. District Court (F/K/A Herrick), No. 90454-COA, Order Denying Petition for Writ of Mandamus or Prohibition (Unpublished Disposition, April 28, 2025)

Sovey filed an emergency petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenging an April 10, 2025, district court order and other interlocutory rulings made during ongoing child custody modification proceedings. Sovey sought extraordinary relief before the district court (Bridget Robb) had issued a final custody determination.

Sovey argued that the district court abused its discretion or exceeded its jurisdiction in a manner warranting extraordinary writ relief during ongoing custody modification proceedings.

In Nevada, a writ of mandamus may compel a public officer to perform a legal duty or control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion (NRS 34.160). A writ of prohibition may arrest judicial proceedings that exceed jurisdiction (NRS 34.320). Writ relief is extraordinary and only granted when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. The availability of an appeal from a final judgment generally precludes writ relief.

The Court of Appeals denied the petition for writ of mandamus or prohibition.

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