New Cases Added to MLAW: Three COA Unpublished: Summit, He, and Barrus

by | Nov 21, 2023 | Nevada Family Law Appeals | 0 comments

Summit v. Summit, No. 84856-COA, Order Affirming in Part and Dismissing in Part (Unpublished Disposition, June 29, 2023)

 This was a child custody and support case where wife had primary custody of the children.

The primary challenge was denial of Husband’s motion to modify custody. Because Husband did not offer any specific argument concerning the district court’s reasoning for admitting or excluding certain materials or testimony from evidence, he has waived any challenge to evidentiary determinations. The appellate court will not reweigh evidence or witness credibility. The Court found the order was very detailed and gave due consideration to the issues and evidence.

There was substantial evidence that Husband failed to submit all financial documents required by the Court. Husband did file financial documents prior to the appeal in Docket No. 82116-COA which the lower court overlooked. Husband failed to show he was prejudiced by this error.

There was no final attorney’s fee order for the Court to review so the appeal was dismissed as to this challenge.

 

He v. Su, No. 85068-COA, Order Affirming in Part, Reversing in Part and Remanding (Unpublished Disposition, July 10, 2023)

In 2017, Wife Lingying He and Husband Zuyu Su were granted a decree of divorce that incorporated terms of their joint petition for divorce. The decree awarded the parties equal interests in their marital residence and any associated debt, and required Su to pay He $1,700  per month in alimony for ten years. After Husband failed to make payments for several years, Wife moved to enforce the decree. The district court entered an order in April 2021, which found that Husband owed Wife $98,600 in alimony arrears and reduced his ongoing alimony obligation to $300 per month.

Husband moved to adjust the arrears, and at the hearing for that matter, Wife conceded that she remarried in July 2017, which meant that Husband’s alimony obligation terminated in July 2017 upon Wife’s remarriage under NRS 125.150(6). The district court concluded that Husband still owed Wife $3,400 in arrears. The district court directed the marital residence to be listed for sale as Husband was unable to buy Wife out of her interest in the home calculated based on its fair market value in April 2017. Wife appealed.

Wife challenged the decision to set aside the order and that Husband’s obligation to pay alimony terminated upon her remarriage under a divorce agreement. The Court agreed with Wife that the parties’ agreement was valid, but that fact does not preclude termination of the alimony obligation under NRS 125.150(6).

Husband did not address Wife’s contention that her net equity in the marital property should be calculated based on its current fair market value.  The Court remanded for the determination of the parties’ equal shares based on its current fair market value.

 

Barrus v. McBride, No. 85320-COA, Order of Reversal and Remand (Unpublished Disposition, July 10, 2023)

This is a case that was filed as an annulment or in the alternative divorce where the parties were married in Nevada but resided outside the State.

The district court entered an order dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction without any motion or hearing oral argument. It reasoned that it could only adjudicate the community property issue in the context of a divorce proceeding, and the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to grant the parties a divorce since they did not meet the residency requirements set forth in NRS 125.020. The district court acknowledged that it would have jurisdiction to grant an annulment under NRS 125.360 since they were married in Nevada.

The Court agreed with Husband that the record does not contain evidence that the parties’ primary residence constitutes community property and it was error to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction to adjudicate the community property issue.

The Court found the parties’ pleadings presented a disputed issue of fact concerning the existence of community property. Furthermore, the district court did not allow for further briefing or oral argument. Reversed the dismissal and remanded the matter for proceedings.

 

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