Las Vegas Family Law Appeals Attorneys

Published Opinions:

Published opinions are cases the appellate court has determined to be of such importance, that they become law that governs all cases in Nevada, not just the parties to that suit. Our firm has not only been the lead counsel on many of the foundational Nevada family law cases, but we have also won nearly all the cases we have argued before the appellate courts. These cases are detailed below.

 

Kragen v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court in & for Cnty. of Clark, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 49, 555 P.3d 1218 (Nev. App. 2024)

In this case, we successfully defended against a Writ Petition filed by our client’s ex-wife challenging a Nevada District Court’s jurisdiction over child custody in their divorce. The jurisdictional issue arose after the mother relocated the parties’ children from Nevada to California without either the court’s or our client’s permission. A few weeks later, our client filed for divorce in Nevada, while his ex-wife filed in California. The Nevada Court of Appeals issued a published decision in our favor. The ruling clarifies the meaning of ‘temporary absence’ in custody cases and requires Nevada district courts to consider the ‘totality of the circumstances’ when determining whether an absence is temporary in determining if Nevada has jurisdiction to hear a child custody case.

 

Ramos v. Franklin, 139 Nev. 54, 525 P.3d 1227 (2023)

In this case, we successfully defended our client’s right to not have a grandparents visitation order entered against her. The Nevada Supreme Court clarified that when considering a third-party petition for visitation in the context of a joint custody arrangement, the court should focus on the petitioner’s overall access to the children. NRS 125C.050(3). Because the grandparents had regular access to the children through the other parent, the district court properly concluded that our client’s denial of grandparent visitation during her custodial time did not constitute an unreasonable restriction. Additionally, the Court concluded that because NRS 125C.050 is ambiguous, they must look beyond the statute. If one parent provides the petitioners with sufficient contact with the children so that their visits are not denied or unreasonably restricted under NRS 125.050(3), the petition fails, regardless of whether both parents provide contact.

 

Lopez v. Lopez, 139 Nev. 533, 541 P.3d 117 (Nev. App. 2023)

In this case, we represented a client challenging the lower court’s division of trust assets in a decree of divorce.  The Court of Appeals issued a formal opinion clarifying that when a married couple forms and manages their own living trust, the trust itself does not need to be named as a separate party in the divorce. The court reasoned that since the spouses are the ones who created, control, and benefit from the trust—and because divorce laws automatically revoke certain trust interests between ex-spouses—the parties themselves represent all the necessary interests. Ultimately, the higher court upheld the original judge’s decision on how the assets were divided, affirming the decree of divorce.

 

Rosie M. v. Ignacio A., 138 Nev. 539, 512 P.3d 758 (2022)

In this case, we successfully defended our client’s paternity rights to his child. When the minor child was born, the mother executed a Voluntary Acknowledgement of Paternity with another man, knowing that our client could be the father. The district court concluded that our client’s definitive DNA results overcame the other man’s Voluntary Acknowledgement of Paternity. Determining that a paternity dispute is not time-barred until the minor child reaches 21 years of age, the district court concluded that our client was the minor child’s legal father and subsequently awarded joint physical custody of the minor child. The mother appealed. The Nevada Supreme Court agreed with our client’s position and affirmed the district court’s paternity and custody rulings. 

 

Eggleston v. Stuart, 137 Nev. 506, 495 P.3d 482 (2021)

Our client sued the Department of Family Services after their handling of a juvenile case caused him to lose contact with his children. The Nevada Supreme Court ruled in our client’s favor, reversing the lower court’s dismissal of his civil rights and emotional distress claims. The Supreme Court clarified that because the right to raise one’s children is a fundamental liberty, our client was not required to pursue all administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit for this type of direct constitutional violation. The Court also held that his claims for emotional distress should proceed because those injuries did not arise from an administrative process.  Finding in favor of our client, the Court sent reversed the dismissal and returned the suit to the lower courts for a rehearing of all his claims and possible award of punitive damages. 

 

Nance v. Ferraro, 134 Nev. 152, 418 P.3d 679 (Nev. App. 2018)

In this case, we represented the appellant challenging the outcome of a custody modification trial. We successfully argued that the judge had erroneously excluded all evidence regarding events prior to the last custody order, resulting in a custody award to the father despite his history of domestic violence. Agreeing with our client’s position, the Nevada Court of Appeals reversed the decision and remanded the case back to the district court. Our client’s custody was reinstated, and it was clarified that she may present evidence of prior domestic violence at a new trial.

 

Nguyen v. Boynes, 133 Nev. 229, 396 P.3d 774 (2017)

This decision established the paternity and child custody rights resulting from adoption by a same-sex couple. The case involved former partners, one of which had adopted a child on his own with the other participating in the adoption process and subsequently caring for the child in his home half the week. While the district court had established rights for the second father through paternity statutes, the Nevada Supreme Court decided on appeal that these rights more properly arise out of the limited theory of equitable adoption.

 

Davis v. Ewalefo, 131 Nev. 445, 352 P.3d 1139 (2015)

In this case, the trial judge denied our client the right to exercise his visitation with his child in the foreign country in which he was employed. We appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court. The appeal focused on each parent’s constitutional right to parent and thus exercise visitation where the parent sees fit so long as the child is not in danger. In an en banc published opinion, the Nevada Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded the case back to the district court, clarifying that the court could not deny him visitation at his home in Africa without further factual findings regarding any potential safety concerns.

 

Bluestein v. Bluestein, 131 Nev. 106, 345 P.3d 1044 (2015)

In this appeal we successfully defended our client’s award of primary physical custody. The Nevada Supreme Court held that when determining whether parents share joint physical custody, judges must look at the actual time each parent spends with the child rather than the labels used in a prior agreement or decree, fundamentally changing how Nevada courts define custodial arrangements. The Court clarified that if a parent has physical custody of a child at least 40 percent of the time, it is legally considered joint physical custody regardless of what the parties called it. By focusing on the “functional” reality of the parenting schedule, the Court ensured that custody designations reflect the true nature of the parent-child relationship.

 

Druckman v. Ruscitti, 130 Nev. 468, 327 P.3d 511 (2014)

In this case, the Nevada Supreme Court addressed the rights of unmarried parents when no formal custody order exists. In this case, the trial judge granted our client permission to retain primary physical custody after relocating to California with her child without the father’s permission.  The father appealed the decision, seeking primary custody for himself. The Court agreed with our client, finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining there was good cause for her move to California and awarding our client primary physical custody based on the child’s best interests.

 

Ogawa v. Ogawa, 125 Nev. 660, 221 P.3d 699 (2009)

This appeal arose after our client moved to Japan with his children and only appeared in court through his then attorney. As a punishment for his absence, the district court awarded all community property and custody to the mother. We appealed and the Nevada Supreme Court issued a published opinion clarifying that a judge cannot “default” a litigant who is represented by an attorney at trial, nor can they ignore the law requiring an equal split of property as a sanction. Additionally, the Court established that when one parent is misled about a relocation, the six-month clock for state jurisdiction only begins once that parent realizes the move is permanent. On remand, the lower court relinquished custody jurisdiction and re-divided the property equally, allowing our client to remain in Japan with his children.

 

Unpublished Appeal Decisions:

Frehner v. Frehner, 89894-COA

In a recent appellate victory, we successfully challenged a lower court’s rulings on child custody and alimony on behalf of our client. The Nevada Court of Appeals reversed the original decision, finding that the district court failed to apply the proper legal standards when evaluating how domestic violence impacts the analysis of a child’s best interests for the purpose of determining custody and/or visitation. Additionally, the court overturned the lower court’s alimony orders, determining that the calculations had incorrectly included child support in personal income and that the orders did not adequately explain the court’s reasoning for significantly reducing the rehabilitative alimony award. This ruling reinforced the requirement for courts to apply the correct evidentiary standard in custody disputes involving domestic violence and confirms that child support funds must not be factored into income during alimony calculations.

 

Christina S. v. Joshua S., 90615

In the case of Christina S. v. Joshua S., the Nevada Supreme Court ruled in favor of our client, affirming his right to remain a parent to his child. The mother had asked the court to permanently end the father’s parental rights based on his past convictions for abuse.  However, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s decision, finding that there was strong evidence that keeping a relationship with both parents was in the child’s best interest. While the court acknowledged the father’s significant mistakes, it highlighted the substantial progress he had made and noted that he was at low risk for repeating those behaviors. Ultimately, this ruling reinforces that Nevada law favors keeping both parents involved in their children’s lives and clarifies that terminating parental rights should never be used to punish a parent for past actions, but rather to protect the child moving forward. 

 

Sheets v. Sheets, 89834-COA

In this case, we successfully defended a mother’s primary custody award along with the court’s approval of her request to move to Montana. The Nevada Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court’s decision, noting that our client proved the planned relocation represented a sincere effort to improve her and her child’s quality of life. The court also confirmed that the court completed a proper analysis of the child’s best interest, supported by sufficient and relevant evidence. Ultimately, the case confirms that a parent’s relocation request must be analyzed following the correct legal test, depending on the status of the case. 

 

Luciano v. Luciano, 86782-COA

In this matter, we successfully defended our client against his ex-wife’s repeated attempts to overturn their divorce decree and change their child custody and support arrangements. Although she failed to show up for the original trial, the ex-wife later claimed the court’s decision was incomplete and accused our client of being dishonest about the facts of the case. The Nevada Court of Appeals upheld the original decisions, finding that her claims had no merit and that she failed to provide a solid legal reason for her requests. This case is a strong example of the “law of the case” doctrine, which stops people from trying to repeatedly argue the same issues once a judge has already made a final decision. It serves as an important reminder that Nevada courts value the finality of their rulings to ensure that legal disputes eventually end rather than dragging on forever.

 

Pierce v. Pierce,  86714

In this case, we successfully defended our client in an appeal filed by her ex-husband. In his appeal, the ex-husband challenged a district court post-decree order which had modified child support, ordered reimbursement, and awarded attorney fees. In the order, the district court had found that our client had overpaid her share of the parties’ child’s health insurance costs and ordered her ex-husband to reimburse her. He appealed. The Nevada Supreme Court agreed with our client’s position and upheld the reimbursement order.

 

Ollerton v. Ayala,  86370–COA

In this relocation appeal, we successfully overturned a court order that had denied a mother’s request to relocate with her children from Nevada to Ohio. We argued that the district court made a critical mistake by denying her request without holding an evidentiary hearing to fully review the facts. Specifically, we pointed out that the court ignored a domestic violence incident witnessed by the children, which was clearly relevant to determining the children’s best interests. The Nevada Court of Appeals agreed with our position, ruling that the lower court failed to properly consider these key facts. As a result, the appellate court reversed the decision and ordered a new hearing, ensuring our client had the opportunity to tell her story and explain to the court why the proposed move was in the best interests of her children. 

 

Kemp v. Turqueza, 86347

In this international custody case, we successfully defended our client against a father’s attempt to move a custody battle to Nevada. We argued that the case belonged in the Philippines, where the child actually lived, rather than in Nevada where the father filed his complaint. The Nevada Supreme Court agreed with our position, confirming that Nevada law recognizes foreign countries as “home states” for custody purposes if the child primarily resides there. Because the child spent more time in the Philippines than in Nevada leading up to the case, the court ruled that Nevada had no authority to intervene. This victory ensured our client did not have to face an unnecessary legal battle in a Nevada court while living abroad with her child.

 

Franklin v. Franklin, 84334

In this case, we represented the Appellant in an appeal and cross-appeal from a divorce ruling involving domestic violence, child custody, property division, alimony, and attorney fees. The Nevada Supreme Court issued a mixed decision, upholding parts of the Divorce Decree and reversing others. The Court found the district court had not properly considered our client’s domestic violence claims and wrongly excluded a key photo of her injuries. In an en banc decision, the Court also reversed an award of attorney fees to the Respondent, observing that the lower court’s order had failed to provide the rationale for this decision. 

 

Brofman v. Fiore, 86673

In this case, we successfully represented a client in an appeal of an order denying his counterclaim seeking loan repayment from his ex-wife. The dispute began when our client appealed several issues while representing himself. However, while that appeal was still active, the district court improperly reopened the case in the lower court and dismissed his loan claim for being filed too late. We stepped in to handle this second appeal, arguing that the district court had no legal authority to issue those new orders while the higher court still held jurisdiction over the original case. The Nevada Supreme Court agreed with our position, ruling that the lower court’s 2023 orders were “void ab initio”, meaning they were legally invalid from the very beginning. This critical victory restored our client’s rights, ensuring he can properly pursue his original claim for the loan repayment.

 

Luciano v. Luciano, 83522-COA

In this case, we successfully defended our client’s divorce decree and custody rights after his ex-wife appealed the trial court’s decision. The opposing party attempted to overturn the ruling by claiming the judge ignored her allegations of domestic violence and awarded our client custody simply to punish her for missing the trial. We countered these claims by showing that the custody decision was based on solid evidence presented in court, rather than as a penalty, and that her legal challenges were filed too late. The Court of Appeals agreed with our position, noting that her motions were procedurally flawed and lacked the necessary legal support. By affirming the lower court’s decision, the Court of Appeals left our client’s custody arrangement and divorce terms fully intact.

 

Crosier v. Crosier, 87206-COA

Here, we successfully convinced the Nevada Court of Appeals to overturn a custody order in which the lower court had failed to conduct a complete review of the child’s best interests pursuant to state law. While our client had raised serious safety concerns—including allegations of past domestic violence—the district court granted the other parent primary custody without properly investigating those claims or including them in its final evaluation. We argued that the court cannot overlook such critical information when determining a child’s welfare and safety. The appellate court agreed, ruling that the lower court’s failure to address these allegations was a legal error. As a result, the case was sent back for a new hearing to ensure that all evidence regarding the child’s safety is thoroughly examined before a final custody decision is made.

 

Rosiak v. Rosiak, 85464-COA & 86632-COA

In this case, we represented the Appellant in appealing a divorce decree, a post-decree order reducing child support arrears to judgment, and a post-decree order awarding attorney’s fees to the Respondent. The Nevada Court of Appeals vacated the child support arrears award to the Respondent, noting that the District Court did not adequately consider the Appellant’s payments made through his social security benefits. It also vacated the attorney’s fees award, as the Respondent could no longer be deemed the sole prevailing party following the vacated child support order.

 

Rodriguez v. Leon-Yanez, 85289- COA

In this case, we successfully defended our client against her former husband’s appeal to overturn their divorce decree. The Nevada Court of Appeals upheld the decision, confirming that the client’s out-of-state house—the case’s most significant asset—remained her sole property. The court rejected the former husband’s procedural complaints, affirming that all individuals must follow established court rules even if they choose to represent themselves. The main property award was finalized, the case was returned to the lower court to reassess the child support and attorney’s fees, as the Court found that the ex-husband’s income had not been adequately considered and that the alimony award contained typographical errors. Overall, this was a major victory that secured our client’s primary assets while providing a path to resolve remaining financial details.

 

Espinoza, 83862-COA

In this appeal, we successfully defended our client’s rightful share to a property her former husband purchased before their marriage, pursuant to Nevada’s well-established community property law. The husband appealed the divorce decree, arguing that the court should have applied an alternative formula referenced in the case law to grant him the full premarital appreciation value. He alleged that this deviation was proper because our client lived in the home for only three months, and he had paid the mortgage throughout the marriage. However, the Nevada Court of Appeals affirmed the original order, ruling that the husband failed to show that using the alternative discretionary formula was warranted. This victory upheld long-standing Nevada case law and secured the community property share our client was rightfully awarded.

 

Arzola v. Estrada, 83941-COA

In this case, we represented the appellant who challenged the district court’s custody, child support, and attorney fee awards to the child’s father. While the Nevada Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s decision to grant the father primary physical custody, it reversed the orders regarding financial obligations. Specifically, the court found that the district court abused its discretion by ordering the mother to pay child support and $40,000 in attorney fees without considering the significant income disparity between the parties. The appellate court highlighted that the district court failed to complete the required analysis per the relevant case law and consider the “adjustment evidence” mandated by statute to properly review the parties’ relative financial means. Consequently, these financial issues were sent back to the lower court to properly account for the mother’s limited ability to pay compared to the father’s substantially higher income.

 

Baptista v. Baugh, 76649-COA

In this case, we successfully defended our client’s interest in upholding a final order that granted both parents joint physical custody. The Nevada Court of Appeals found that the original Missouri court orders, including a follow-up agreement, expressly established joint physical custody while accomodating the child starting school in Las Vegas. The opposing party challenged the district court’s interpretation of the Missouri orders, claiming that he had been granted primary custody. The court rejected his arguments, noting that both parents were already successfully sharing parenting time on an alternating-week basis. Crucially, the court ruled that our client was not required to prove a substantial change in circumstances under the Ellis v. Carucci standard because the existing arrangement was already one of joint custody. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, finding that the lower court acted within its discretion by maintaining the joint custody schedule that was already in place and benefiting the child.

 

Pavon v. Pavon, 83376-COA

In this case, we successfully defended our client against an appeal by her former partner, seeking to modify child custody and challenging an award of attorney fees. While the appellate court noted that the lower court improperly considered the father’s “no contest” plea to a prior sexual coercion charge, it ruled this error was harmless as the remaining evidence was sufficient to support the court’s conclusion. The court specifically highlighted our client’s role as the child’s sole caretaker during the other parent’s incarceration and the high level of conflict between the parties. Ultimately, the Nevada Court of Appeals affirmed that the custody decision was in the child’s best interest and supported by substantial evidence. The court also upheld the order requiring the former partner to pay our client’s legal fees, finding he failed to present a convincing argument to the contrary.

 

Franceschi, 63655

In this case, the district court initially denied our client’s request to establish paternity of his infant son. This occurred after the mother filed a paternity affidavit naming another man as the only possible father, which allowed his name to be placed on the birth certificate. We appealed this decision, and the Nevada Supreme Court reversed the dismissal, providing specific instructions on how to handle fraudulent paternity affidavits. We continued to represent the father throughout the subsequent proceedings on remand. Our client is now the child’s legally confirmed father and currently enjoys joint physical custody of his son.

 

Kashuba, 69829

In this case, we represented a mother appealing a district court order that granted primary custody to the father despite evidence of his prior domestic violence. The lower court had excluded this evidence because the incidents occurred before the most recent custody order was issued. On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court reversed this decision, ruling that the evidence must be admitted and remanding the case for a new trial. During that second trial, we successfully presented the previously excluded information, which led to our client being awarded primary physical custody. As a result, our client now has custody of her son and has since relocated with him to Canada. 

 

Hughes, 66436

This appeal arose from a father challenging the trial court’s award of primary custody to our client after she moved out of state with the children. On appeal, the father argued that the court ignored a domestic violence incident involving our client; however, that incident involved a legal “submittal” that was inadmissible as evidence. He also contended that she should have been denied custody because she relocated the children without his prior permission. The Nevada Supreme Court rejected these arguments and upheld the district court’s decision in favor of our client. As a result, our client continues to live out of state with her children in her primary care.

 

Kingsbury, 68094

In this case, we represented the husband after the district court finalized a divorce by incorporating the terms of a decade-old legal separation decree. The wife appealed this decision, seeking to reopen or modify the settled terms of the marriage. The Nevada Supreme Court upheld the ruling, finding that the original separation was a binding agreement intended to end the community and resolve all marital issues, including alimony. Consequently, the court confirmed that the district court had the authority to issue the final divorce decree based on that long-standing agreement. This victory ensured that our client’s final divorce decree and its original financial protections remained fully intact.

 

Smith, 66983

In this case, we represented a mother after the district court ordered her to have no contact with her daughter based solely on the child’s preference. We appealed this decision, arguing that such a restrictive order effectively terminated the mother’s parental rights. The Nevada Supreme Court agreed, ruling that it was improper to sever the parent-child relationship without providing the mother proper due process or finding a legal basis for such a severe step. This victory protected our client’s fundamental rights as a parent and reversed the lower court’s overreach.

 

Guardianship of TTH and TAH, 73932-COA

In this case, we represented a mother who sought to regain custody of her children nine years after signing over guardianship to her sister. After the district court terminated the guardianship and the children were returned to their mother, the sister appealed the decision. In the appeal, the court addressed the high legal burden required to keep children from their fit, natural parents. The court affirmed the lower court’s ruling, confirming that the children should remain in our client’s care. This victory finally resolved a decade-long legal struggle and secured our client’s full parental rights.

Madrid v. Hernandez, 75461-COA

In this appeal, we successfully defended a father’s rights following a district court order that granted him primary physical custody and denied the mother’s request to relocate the child to Kentucky. The Nevada Court of Appeals focused on whether the lower court had properly evaluated the child’s best interests after an initial emergency order was issued based on unproven allegations. The appellate court affirmed the decision, ruling that any early procedural issues regarding legal notice were corrected during the subsequent multi-day trial. This victory confirmed that the district court’s thorough analysis of the best-interest factors was supported by substantial evidence. Ultimately, the ruling secured our client’s primary custody and prevented the child’s relocation out of state.

 

Sell v. Diehl– 74916-COA

In the case of Sell v. Diehl, we defended a mother’s custodial rights after her sister sought to retain custody of her niece and nephew pursuant to a long-standing guardianship.  The district court initially dismissed the sister’s custody claims and terminated the guardianship, finding that the mother was a fit parent and that no circumstances suggested that it was in the best interests of the children to remain with their aunt. The sister appealed this dismissal, arguing that she had not actually intended to waive her claims to custody. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and affirmed the lower court’s decision, ruling that the sister’s statements in court were a clear abandonment of her pursuit of custody. This successful defense ensured the dismissal remained in place and our client retained full custody of her children.

 

Carter v. Ducksworth, 81966-COA

In this case, we successfully defended a father’s interests after the mother appealed the district court order awarding our client primary physical custody of the child. The appeals court held that a parent who hinders the physical and electronic parenting time can create a substantial change in circumstances, therefore warranting a child custody modification. Thus, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision to modify the custody agreement for the best interest of the child giving primary custody to our client. Our client continues to have primary physical custody of his child. 

 

Landan v. Landan, 77858-COA

In the appeal of this case, we represented the ex-wife in a dispute over whether her right to collect a decade-old judgment for attorney fees had expired. The ex-husband challenged the collection, arguing that the six-year statute of limitations had passed and the judgment was no longer enforceable. We successfully argued to the Nevada Court of Appeals that a 2016 modification to the payment agreement constituted a “last transaction” under Nevada law, which legally restarted the clock for renewal. The appellate court agreed, ruling that our client’s request to renew the judgment was timely and that the ex-husband’s ongoing payments toward the debt prevented the claim from expiring. This victory ensured our client could continue to collect the full amount of legal fees she was originally awarded.

 

Bynan v. Bynan, 81775-COA

Here, we represented the appellant challenging a district court order awarding his ex-wife $4,500 in attorney fees. We successfully argued to the Nevada Court of Appeals that the district court failed to provide a specific legal or factual basis for the award, a requirement under Nevada law. The appellate court agreed, noting that the lower court did not complete a proper analysis nor make clear findings. As a result, the court reversed the award and sent the case back for a determination that accounted for the parties’ financial circumstances. This victory ensured that our client was protected from an arbitrary and unsupported financial penalty.

 

Rogers v. Rogers, 76173-COA and 76758-COA

In this case, we successfully challenged the district court’s income calculations and the resulting award of attorney fees to the opposing party. The Nevada Court of Appeals found that the lower court erred by including alimony in the gross monthly income figures, which inaccurately inflated the financial totals used for child support. Because of this error, the appellate court reversed the ruling and ordered a new child support calculation and a reassessment of attorney fees to ensure our client’s future obligations are based on accurate income data.

 

Ilieva-Klimas v. Estupinian, 75279-COA

In this case, our client appealed the district court order denying her motion to modify child custody. In the district court, our client sought joint physical custody of her child as well as make-up visitation. Without holding a hearing, the lower court denied our motion and granted primary custody to the other parent. On appeal, the appeals court found that our client’s due process rights were violated when the district court awarded permanent physical custody to the other parent without providing notice, holding a hearing, or making specific findings as to the best interest of the child. This case was remanded back to the district court to hold the required hearing to establish a permanent custody agreement in the best interest of the child. 

 

Telles v. Cornelius, 74695-COA (2019)

In this case, our client’s estate successfully appealed the district court’s evaluation of the marital business and arbitrary distribution of marital assets. The appeals court agreed with our claim that the district court improperly valued the marital business, as it had not provided any evidence supporting the valuation and had instead relied on guesswork. Additionally, the appeals court found that the court failed to sufficiently explain the reasoning behind the distribution of marital assets. Thus, this matter was reversed and remanded down to the lower courts to complete a complete valuation of the marital business and ensure an equitable distribution of assets. 

 

Telles v. Cornelius, 80355-COA (2021)

Following the 2019 decision above, our client appealed this case a second time because following the initial remand, the district court again based the valuation of the marital business on unsubstantial evidence, using the existing record at the time of original trial. On appeal, it was reaffirmed that the evidence used at trial was unsubstantial because the district court cannot use unsupported testimony to assign arbitrary value to a business held by the marital community.  Again, the Nevada Court of Appeals remanded this matter to the district court with instructions that it must conduct further proceedings to ascertain the value of the business and issue new findings consistent with this order. 

 

Adrianzen v. Petit , 78966-COA

Here, we successfully represented a father in an appeal after the district court denied his request for an evidentiary hearing to modify child custody. Our client sought to change the existing custody arrangement which had awarded primary physical custody to the opposing party without the required finding regarding the child’s best interests. Our client subsequently sought joint physical custody, providing evidence of the child’s declining health and safety concerns involving the mother’s fiancé. While the lower court initially concluded there was not enough cause to revisit the issue, the Nevada Court of Appeals ruled that our client had presented sufficient factual allegations to warrant a full hearing. As a result, the appellate court reversed the decision and ordered the district court to conduct the necessary evidentiary hearing, ensuring that our client had the opportunity to present his evidence regarding his child’s best interests.

 

Salazar v. Landa, 83111-COA

In this case, we successfully represented a father in an appeal concerning child support and the division of a home purchased before the marriage. The Nevada Court of Appeals agreed with our argument that alimony should have been included in the calculation of gross monthly income for child support purposes and remanded that issue for correction. Additionally, the appellate court found that the district court erred by awarding the premarital home entirely to the opposing party without accounting for our client’s separate property interest. As a result, the court ordered a new determination to properly calculate and award each party’s fair share of both separate and community interests in the property. This victory ensured a more accurate child support order and protected our client’s significant financial stake in the premarital asset.

 

Sobcyzk v. Osborne, 83565-COA

This appeal successfully reversed a custody order that improperly gave a third-party specialist the power to decide parenting time. The initial custody order, issued by a New York court, granted our client sole physical custody and permission to move with the child to Nevada. Subsequently, the father sought to modify custody in Nevada where the district court ordered a gradual increase in the father’s visitation but left the specific timing and schedule up to a “reunification specialist.” We challenged this decision, arguing that a judge cannot legally hand over their judicial authority to a healthcare professional or consultant. The Court of Appeals agreed, ruling that the district court overstepped by delegating its decision-making power to the specialist. As a result, the court’s order was overturned, ensuring that critical decisions regarding the child’s welfare remain in the hands of the court rather than an outside provider.

 

Garcia v. Shapiro, 83992-COA

In this case, our client appealed the district court’s failure to address the client’s request for child support arrears. The parties were never married and had one minor child together. Prior to the initiation of a complaint of custody, our client had de facto primary custody and was entitled to child support arrears from the opposing party. However, the district court failed to rule on our client’s child support arrears issue. We appealed. The Court Appeals agreed, concluding that the district court improperly refused to decide our client’s request for the child support arrears and remanding the case for a final determination of the issue. 

 

Egosi v. Egosi, 83454-COA

In this case, we successfully defended our client’s interest in maintaining the district court’s custody order and contempt rulings. The opposing party challenged the district court’s decisions on several fronts, including numerous procedural issues as well as the proper application of child custody law and the legal validity of the couple’s prenuptial agreement. Additionally, the opposing party argued that the judge had divided property incorrectly and should have stepped down from the case entirely due to an alleged conflict of interest. We effectively countered each of these claims, leading the Supreme Court to conclude that the lower court had acted within its authority and followed the law correctly. Ultimately, the Court of Appeals rejected every argument raised by the opposing party, leaving our client’s legal victories fully intact.

 

Adamska, Nevada Supreme Court Case No. 67328, & U.S. Supreme Court Case No. 16-797

In this case, our client moved her two children to Poland without the father’s knowledge. The father filed for divorce and custody in Nevada. After two years of litigation, the district court ultimately dismissed the custody case, deferring jurisdiction to Poland and issuing a status divorce. On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the district court. The father then appealed to the United States Supreme Court which declined to review the case. Our client remains living with her children in Poland where custody decisions were ultimately made by the Polish court.

 

Merchan, 9th Circuit Case No. 14-16045

In this case, we represented a Colombian citizen, whose child was unlawfully detained by the mother in the U.S. in defiance of a valid Colombian custody order. Although the child expressed a desire to remain in the United States with her mother, my client prevailed, with the U.S. District Court finding that under the law, the child’s wishes alone were insufficient to overcome the father’s valid foreign custody order. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the federal district court’s decision after oral argument and briefing. Despite these rulings, the mother continued to defy the courts’ orders, hiding the child and refusing to relinquish custody. We then assisted law enforcement to retrieve the child from school, secure overnight housing for her and finally deliver her to her grateful father at the airport. My client currently has his daughter back home with him in Colombia.