Mahoney, Jr. v. Mahoney, Nos. 82412 and 82413, Order of Affirmance (Unpublished Disposition, July 21, 2022)

Bartholomew (Bart) and Bonnie Mahoney divorced in February 2016. They agreed to share joint legal custody of their two minor children with Bonnie receiving primary physical custody, and Bart was to pay Bonnie child support and cover the children on his medical insurance plan. He was also to pay Bonnie monthly alimony for five years as well as 25% of his annual bonuses, to provide Bonnie with his W-2 forms annually, and to cover the attorney fees and costs that Bonnie incurred in litigating the divorce. If he failed to provide the W-2 forms, he was to provide Bonnie 35% of his annual bonuses. Bart failed to abide by any of these terms, so Bonnie filed a motion to reduce arrearages, interest, and penalties to judgment; to modify alimony; to review child support; and for sanctions and attorney fees.

After a hearing on the matter, the district court entered an order directing Bart to provide Bonnie with his W-2 forms for 2015-2018, and set an evidentiary hearing in May 2020. Bart’s attorney was granted motion to withdraw as Bart had not formally retained him as counsel and had ceased communicating with him for over a month. Thereafter, Bart, acting pro se, and Bonnie’s attorney stipulated to a continuance of the evidentiary hearing, and it was set for October 2020. Bart was sent notice by both electronic mail at the email address used to communicate with Bonnie’s attorney, and mail at the address on file with the court. Bart failed to show appear, and Bonnie’s motion was granted, plus attorney’s fees and costs.

Bart appealed, claiming that he was never properly notified and challenging the district court’s findings in granting Bonnie’s motion. Substantial evidence supported the district court’s finding that Bart was properly notified of the evidentiary hearing. Bart’s objections to the district court’s findings in its order granting Bonnie’s motion to reduce arrearages were waived as he’d failed to argue the points previously. Finally, pursuant to Brunzell, the court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees and costs to Bonnie.

The judgment of the district court was affirmed.


Hendrickson v. Whitney, No. 83366, Order of Affirmance (Unpublished Disposition, July 21, 2022)

Amy Hendrickson and Eric Whitney shared custody of their minor child pursuant to a 2013 order. In August 2020, Eric filed a motion to modify physical custody and child support, seeking modification of the 2013 order by formalizing the physical custody arrangement that he and Amy had been informally practicing since 2017. Amy filed a countermotion for primary physical custody for the purposes of relocation, and later filed a separate motion for permission to relocate with the child. She also requested attorney fees. Eric filed oppositions to each motion.

A hearing found that Amy did not have a sensible, good faith reason for the move; thus, Eric was entitled to fees relating to the action. Amy appealed, arguing that the district court did not make a finding pursuant to NRS 18.010(2)(b) that she brought her motions without reasonable grounds or to harass Eric; that she was being penalized for filing multiple motions in compliance with WDCR 10(3)(a); that the district court never ruled on her motion for primary custody for the purposes of relocation or consider the best interest factors; that the district court did not comply with NRCP 11’s requirements; and that NRS 018.020(3) was inapplicable since there was no money judgment recorded.

The district court always had discretion to award such fees in child custody and parenting time matters, and was found not to have abused its discretion in awarding Eric attorney fees and costs in light of the protracted litigation on the custody issue.

The judgment of the district court was affirmed.

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