Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court granted Petitioner's petition for review of the decision of the court of appeals affirming the decision of the trial court granting the City of Austin's plea to the jurisdiction and dismissing this case brought by Plaintiff alleging that the City provided taxpayer money to abortion-assistance organizations in violation of Texas law, holding that the case must be remanded.The trial court granted the City's plea to the jurisdiction without explaining its reasons and dismissed with prejudice Petitioner's claim that the City's budget violated Texas law and dismissed with prejudice Petitioner's claim that the City's 2019 budget violated the Gift Clause. The court of appeals affirmed, relying on the Supreme Court's holding in Roe to conclude that Petitioner's claim could not proceed. Petitioner petitioned for review. After briefing was complete, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 142 S. Ct. 2228 (2022). The Supreme Court granted Petitioner's petition for review without regard to the merits and vacated the judgments below, holding that, because Dobbs overruled Roe, remand was required for consideration of the effect this change in the law and any intervening factual developments on Petitioner's claims. View "Zimmerman v. City of Austin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court dismissing Wife's complaint alleging legal malpractice arising from legal advice given in the course of drafting an estate plan, holding that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations.After a decree of divorce issued divorcing Husband and Wife Husband appealed. The Supreme Court partly reversed the divorce decree, determining that assets in the parties' spendthrift trusts created in a separate property agreement could not be levied against through court order, that the separate property agreement was valid, and that the parties' property was avidly separated into their respective separate property trusts when it was executed. Wife subsequently filed a legal malpractice complaint against Attorney, who previously assisted the parties in creating their estate plan, seeking $5 million in damages. The district court dismissed the complaint, concluding that the legal malpractice claim was transactional and that that the statute of limitations barred the claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was no need to toll commencement of the limitations period for transactional malpractice claims; and (2) Wife's legal malpractice claim was transactional, and therefore, the litigation-malpractice tolling rule did not apply. View "Nelson v. Burr" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the order of the district court finding that Nev. Rev. Stat. 432B.393(3)(c) violates due process, holding that the statute does not infringe on the fundamental liberty interest a parent has in the care and custody of his or her child and thus does not violate due process.Section 432B.393(3)(c) relieves a child welfare services agency from its duty to provide reasonable efforts to reunify a child with his or her parent if a court finds that the parents' parental rights were involuntarily terminated with respect to the child's sibling. A court master recommended that the district court find section 432B.393(3)(c) unconstitutional because, for purposes of terminating the parent-child relationship, it could lead to a presumption that the parent is unfit without any consideration of present circumstances. The Supreme Court vacated the district court's order, holding (1) insofar as section 432B.393(3)(c) relieves an agency of making reunification efforts it does not infringe on a parent's fundamental liberty interest in the care and custody of his or her child and therefore does not violate due process; and (2) although the district court erred, the petition must be denied as moot. View "Washoe County Human Services v. District Court" on Justia Law

In this divorce action, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Husband's motions to continue the bench trial and the court's division of marital property, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion.After seventeen years of marriage, the parties in this case divorced. Husband appealed, arguing, among other things, that the district court abused its discretion and violated his constitutional due process in denying his motions to continue the trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not deny Husband due process by denying Husband's motions to continue; and (2) did not abuse its discretion in its division of marital property and debts. View "Engebretsen v. Engebretsen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the superior court dismissing Plaintiff's tort complaint against Defendant, the firm that represented her ex-husband in her complaint for divorce, as being barred by the doctrine of issue preclusion, holding that Plaintiff's tort action was not barred by issue preclusion.During the divorce proceedings, Plaintiff moved for a mistrial on the ground of surprise because Defendant failed to copy her attorney on a subpoena requesting her counseling records from her therapist. A referee denied the motion. After the conclusion of the divorce proceedings, Plaintiff brought this action asserting claims of abuse of process and intentional infliction of emotional distress, alleging that Defendant abused the legal process by obtaining a full set of her counseling records, and the disclosure caused her great distress. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the complaint was barred by res judicata. The trial court determined that Plaintiff was collaterally estopped from pursuing her tort claims. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment below, holding that Plaintiff's action was not barred by issue preclusion because the referee's findings were not essential to the underlying divorce judgment. View "Pacheco v. Libby O'Brien Kingsley & Champion, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that, in petitions for adoption and permanent placement, a family court is free to consider any admissible evidence that addresses the best interests of the individual, including evidence supporting some best interests factors listed in Haw. Rev. Stat. 571-46(b).In 2018, the Department of Human Services (DHS) assumed temporary foster custody of two children under the Child Protective Act (CPA) and placement them with resource caregivers (RCGs). In 2020, Father stipulated to the termination of his parental rights. The children's aunt and uncle (Relatives) intervened in the CPA's permanent placement and adoption proceedings. DHS filed a petition on behalf of RCGs to adopt the children. Relatives responded by filing their own petition to adopt the children. The family court consolidated the dual adoption cases and found that adoption by the RCGs was in each child's best interest. The intermediate court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a family court does not necessarily err when it relies on HRS 571-46(b)'s mandatory custody and visitation factors to guide a best interest determination in adoption and placement proceedings. View "In re ASK" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court setting aside a judgment confirming an arbitration award under Nev. R. Civ. P. 60(b) (NRCP 60(b)), holding that Nevada Arbitration Rule (NAR) 19(C) bars a district court from setting aside a judgment confirming gan arbitration award under NRCP 60(b).On appeal from a district court judgment confirming an arbitration award under NRCP 60(b), Appellant argued that NAR 19(C) barred the district court from applying NRCP 60(b) to set aside the judgment. The Supreme Court agreed and remanded the case with instructions to reinstate the judgment, holding that NAR 19(C) barred post-judgment relief under NRCP 60(b). View "Arce v. Sanchez" on Justia Law

The Humboldt County Department of Health and Human Services filed a petition alleging that the minor had been sexually abused by her father. Mother was not named as an offending parent in the petition. The juvenile court found that the Department failed to prove the sexual abuse allegations against the father but did not dismiss the petition. Instead, the court found that the evidence supported jurisdiction based upon unpleaded allegations of emotional abuse by the mother, a position urged by the minor’s counsel but opposed by the Department. The court subsequently entered a disposition order.The court of appeal reversed. The juvenile court violated the mother’s due process rights when it established jurisdiction based on the conduct of a parent the Department never alleged was an offending parent, and on a factual and legal theory not raised in the Department’s petition. Parents have a due process right to be informed of the nature of the proceedings and the allegations upon which the deprivation of custody is predicated so that they can make an informed decision on whether to appear, prepare, and contest the allegations. View "In re S.V." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the circuit court finding that a surviving wife (Wife) did not voluntarily enter into a premarital agreement that waived any right she had to the property of her deceased husband (Husband) and that the agreement was unconscionable, holding that the circuit court erred in invalidating the agreement under the provisions of S.D. Codified Laws 29A-2-213(b) and S.D. Codified Laws 25-2-21(a)(2).After Husband died, Wife petitioned the circuit court for, inter alia, her elective share and homestead allowance. At issue was the validity of the premarital agreement signed by Wife. The circuit court found that Wife did not voluntarily sign the agreement and that the agreement was unconscionable. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the circuit court (1) did not clearly err in finding that Wife did not voluntarily sign the agreement and that the agreement was void and unenforceable on this basis; but (2) erred in finding that the agreement was unconscionable. View "In re Estate of Eichstadt" on Justia Law

Issac Vassel appealed a district court’s divorce judgment and calculation of child support entered following a bench trial. Issac Vassel and Felice Vassel were in a relationship in 2009 and married in 2015. The parties had three minor children together, born in 2010, 2012, and 2016. Felice attempted to file an action for divorce in or around September 2020. The summons and complaint were returned undeliverable. Felice filed a summons and complaint in North Dakota on October 15, 2020. Issac answered and filed a counterclaim on March 15, 2021. A bench trial was held on March 1, 2022. The parties testified at trial. Issac contended the district court erred by awarding Felice back child support because the award was not supported by the record. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the award. View "Vassel v. Vassel" on Justia Law