Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Father and Mother's stipulated Nevada divorce decree incorporated the parents' agreement that Nevada would have exclusive jurisdiction over future custody disputes. The parents had joint legal custody, but when Husband and Wife were not able to work out a schedule for joint physical custody, Wife applied to Nevada's district court for an order awarding her primary physical custody. At this point, both parents and their children had moved to California. Husband initiated competing custody proceedings in California, maintaining that Nevada lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute. The Nevada district court, meanwhile, provisionally granted Wife primary physical custody. Husband petitioned for a writ of prohibition and/or mandamus, directing the Nevada district court to stand down from its assertion of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding that under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), which Nevada and California had both adopted, California had jurisdiction as the children's home state, and Nevada could not proceed unless California determined that Nevada was the more convenient forum.

After Father received sole custody of Child, Father and Child lived with Grandmother. Father and Child then moved. Later, Father stopped allowing Child to see Grandmother. Grandmother then sought court-ordered nonparental visitation. Father filed a motion to dismiss the petition, which the district court denied. The parties then reached a settlement of the visitation issues, and the district court issued a visitation order effecting the provisions of the parties' stipulation. Later, Grandmother filed a motion to compel Father to comply with the stipulated visitation order, which the district court denied, finding, inter alia, that continued visitation was not in Daughter's best interest. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) modification or termination of a nonparent's judicially approved visitation rights is only warranted upon a showing of a substantial change in circumstances that affects a child's welfare such that it is in the child's best interest to modify the existing visitation arrangement; and (2) the district court failed to articulate any substantial change in circumstances before it terminated Grandmother's nonparent visitation rights, and therefore, it was not in the best interests of Child to terminate visitation. Remanded.

Appellant Dlynn Landreth and Respondent Amit Malik lived together between 2001 and 2004 and moved multiple times through multiple states. The couple never married and had no children. Ms. Landreth ended the relationship prior to moving to Nevada and purchased a home shortly after moving to Las Vegas. The couple briefly reunited, but by September, 2005, the relationship was over. Mr. Malik contended that the decision to move to Las Vegas was a joint decision and that Ms. Landreth used joint money for the down payment on the house. In 2006, Mr. Malik sued Ms. Landreth in family court seeking half of the equity in the house. Ms. Landreth had difficulty obtaining counsel and raising a defense to Mr. Malikâs complaint. She asked for multiple extensions of time, each of which Mr. Malik granted. In February, 2007, Mr. Malik grew weary of the delays and asked the court to enter a default judgment and grant him equity in the Las Vegas house. The court entered a default against Ms. Landreth, and she appealed, arguing that the family court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case since family law was not implicated by the underlying facts. Ms. Landreth also argued that she did not receive proper notice of the default judgment. The Supreme Court concluded that the family court maintained all the constitutional powers of a district court judge and had jurisdiction over Mr. Malikâs claim. Furthermore, the Court found that Mr. Malik did not serve Ms. Landreth with proper notice of his intent to seek a default judgment against her. The Court reversed the decision of the lower court and remanded the case for further proceedings.