1. Butte v. Rowland, No. 89543-COA, Order of Affirmance (Unpublished Disposition, May 8, 2025)
Butte and Rowland are the parents of three minor children. After initially filing competing petitions for sole custody, the parties stipulated to joint legal and physical custody, which the district court (Dixie Grossman) adopted. Nine months later, a separate court in a different case involving Rowland’s daughter from another relationship (E.B.) found that Rowland had abducted E.B. years earlier by relocating without court permission.
Upon learning of this, Butte filed a motion to modify custody under NRS 125C.0035(9), arguing that the abduction finding triggered a presumption against joint custody. Rowland opposed and filed a countermotion for sole custody. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court (Dixie Grossman) found that Rowland rebutted the presumption and denied both motions, maintaining joint custody.
Butte appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by denying Butte’s motion to modify custody based on a prior finding that Rowland had abducted another child.
In Nevada, under NRS 125C.0035(7), a finding of child abduction creates a rebuttable presumption against awarding joint or sole custody to the abductor. NRS 125C.0035(9) allows reconsideration of custody orders upon a finding of abduction. The best interest of the child is the sole consideration in custody determinations (NRS 125C.0035(1); Ellis v. Carucci, 123 Nev. 145 (2007)).
The Court of Appeals held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Butte’s motion to modify custody.
2. Schricker v. Schricker, No. 87984-COA, 2025 WL 22003 (Nev. Ct. App. May 16, 2025) (Unpublished affirmance in part, reversal in part, and remand)
Donald and Cheryl were married in 2005 after co-owning property and living together for several years. They jointly purchased a property in Lake Almanor, California, and later Cheryl used her inheritance to purchase a home in Reno (Tapadero property), which was titled in both names. Cheryl filed for divorce in 2019, seeking to characterize the Tapadero property as her separate property and alleging fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. The district court (Tamatha Schreinert) found both properties to be community property and ordered Donald to buy out Cheryl’s interest in the Almanor property. It also found Donald owed Cheryl $119,000 based on a deed of trust and ordered equalization of attorney fees.
Donald appealed, arguing that the district court erred in characterizing the Almanor and Tapadero properties as community property; the court erred in awarding Cheryl $119,000 based on a deed of trust without a promissory note; the court abused its discretion in imposing discovery sanctions; the court erred in its valuation of the Tapadero property; and the court erred in awarding attorney fees from Donald’s separate property. Cheryl cross-appealed, claiming that Tapadero was her separate property as she used inheritance money to purchase it.
In Nevada, property acquired during marriage is presumed community property (NRS 123.220). A deed of trust may evidence a debt even without a promissory note. Discovery sanctions are reviewed for abuse of discretion (NRCP 37). Valuation of property must be supported by substantial evidence. Attorney fees may be awarded from separate property in divorce (NRS 125.150(4)).
The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s finding that the Tapadero property was community property, rejecting Cheryl’s argument that it was her separate property; affirmed the finding that Donald owed Cheryl $119,000 based on the deed of trust, despite the absence of a promissory note; and affirmed the finding that Donald did not commit fraud or breach fiduciary duties in the Tapadero property transaction. The court upheld the district court’s imposition of discovery sanctions against Donald for failing to comply with discovery obligations. The court affirmed the equalization of attorney fees, requiring Donald to reimburse Cheryl from his separate funds.
The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s valuation of the Tapadero property at $407,000, finding it unsupported by the evidence. Both parties had agreed at trial that the property was worth $704,000.
The case was remanded to the district court to correct the valuation of the Tapadero property and to update the equalization payment in the divorce decree accordingly.
