Case library
Nevada family-law decisions, briefed for practice.
Practitioner summaries with key holdings, posture, disposition, and the statutes cited - up front, where you need them. Every summary links to the full opinion.
Case Library = case briefs of the decisions themselves. For long-form explainers of the governing law, Guides; for the exact quotable passages, verified verbatim, the Canon.
119 results for “NRS 125.150(1)(a)” in Divorce, Property & Alimony
BELLISARIO VS. BELLISARIO (CHILD CUSTODY)
Sep 16, 202222-29109 · 84128 · Nevada (SCOTN/COA)
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.The court reviewed the procedural due process challenge de novo under Callie v. Bowling, 123 Nev. 181, 183, 160 P.3d 878, 879 (2007), and concluded that conducting trial on the noticed date did not violate due process…
IN RE: JOINT PETITION OF MCKENDRY (FAMILY)
Jul 1, 202690847-COA · Nevada (SCOTN/COA)
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part ("ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED in part, and DISMISS this appeal in part.").The Court of Appeals reviewed the district court's decisions concerning divorce proceedings for an abuse of discretion, citing Williams v. Williams, 120 Nev. 559, 566, 97 P.3d 1124, 1129 (2004), while noting that…
FISHER VS. WING (FAMILY)
May 28, 202626-24100 · 91269-COA · Nevada (SCOTN/COA)
Affirmed. ("ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.")The Court of Appeals reviewed an amended decree of divorce following its own prior remand in Fisher v. Wing, No. 87698-COA, 2025 WL 1770808 (Nev. Ct. App. Jun. 25, 2025). On the change-of-venue issue, the court noted…
SCHRYVER VS. SCHRYVER (DIVORCE PROPERTY & ALIMONY)
Mar 5, 1992108 Nev. 190, 826 P.2d 569 (1992) · 21888 · Nevada Supreme Court
Reversed and remanded.Addressing an issue of first impression in Nevada, the court held that a motion to modify alimony filed within the period of support contemplated by the divorce decree is timely under NRS 125.150(7), even though the…
MALMQUIST VS. MALMQUIST (DIVORCE PROPERTY & ALIMONY)
Apr 24, 1990106 Nev. 231, 792 P.2d 372 (1990) · Nevada Supreme Court
Affirmed in part and reversed in part; the Court reversed the apportionment of the parties' interests in the marital residence and in the improvements and remanded, while affirming the classification of the greenhouse as community property and the judgment in all other respects.Rose, J. The Court adopted, with one modification, the apportionment method of In re Marriage of Moore, 618 P.2d 208 (Cal. 1980), for determining separate and community interests in the appreciation of a residence…
BYRD VS. BYRD
Sep 30, 2021137 Nev. Adv. Op. 60, 501 P.3d 458 (Ct. App. 2021) · 80548-COA · Nevada Supreme Court
Reversed and remanded.Standard of review. The denial or grant of a motion under NRCP 60(b) is reviewed for abuse of discretion, with no deference to legal error. Cook v. Cook, 112 Nev. 179, 181-82, 912 P.2d 264, 265 (1996); AA Primo…
ALBA VS. ALBA (DIVORCE PROPERTY & ALIMONY)
Mar 30, 1995111 Nev. 426, 892 P.2d 574 (1995) · 25538 · Nevada Supreme Court
Affirmed. The division of community personal property and the award of rehabilitative alimony were affirmed.Per Curiam. The court affirmed a divorce decree's division of community personal property and award of rehabilitative alimony. Property valuation. Addressing personal-property valuation as a matter of first impression…
JOHNSON VS. JOHNSON (DIVORCE PROPERTY & ALIMONY)
Jun 17, 196076 Nev. 318, 353 P.2d 449 (1960) · 4273 · Nevada Supreme Court
Affirmed. ("Judgment affirmed.")By the Court, Pike, J. On the husband's appeal from a decree granting the wife a divorce for extreme cruelty and dividing community property, the court affirmed. Although the acts of violence occurred on a single…
FAUGHNAN VS. FAUGHNAN
May 17, 202424-17537 · 86279-COA · Nevada (SCOTN/COA)
Affirmed. ("ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.")The court reviewed the denial of NRCP 60(b)(1) relief for abuse of discretion, citing *Willard v. Berry-Hinckley Indus.*, 136 Nev. 467, 469, 469 P.3d 176, 179 (2020). Under NRCP 60(b)(1), a district court may relieve a…
ISAAC VS. ISAAC
Oct 26, 202323-34982 · 83055 · Nevada (SCOTN/COA)
Affirmed.Standard of review. Settlement agreements are interpreted under contract principles and reviewed de novo, but the existence of a contract is a question of fact reviewed for substantial evidence. May v. Anderson, 121…
WILSON VS. WILSON
Jan 30, 202424-03609 · 84981-COA · Nevada (SCOTN/COA)
Reversed and remanded.The Court of Appeals reviewed the denial of attorney fees for an abuse of discretion, citing Miller v. Wilfong, 121 Nev. 619, 622, 119 P.3d 727, 729 (2005). The court noted that under Davis v. Ewalefo, 131 Nev. 445,…
SACHETTI VS. SACHETTI (FAMILY)
Apr 29, 202626-19422 · 89619-COA · Nevada (SCOTN/COA)
Affirmed. ("we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.")The Court of Appeals reviewed the enforcement of an agreement-based divorce decree and an attorney-fee award. It set out the governing standards: district court decisions in divorce proceedings and on reconsideration…
WEEKS VS. WEEKS (DIVORCE PROPERTY & ALIMONY)
Oct 19, 195975 Nev. 411, 345 P.2d 228 (1959) · 4183 · Nevada Supreme Court
Modified and affirmed. ("As so modified, the judgment appealed from is affirmed. Respondent to recover her costs.")On this second appeal from a post-remand judgment in a divorce action, the court addressed (1) the procedure of reassigning the case for redistribution to a judge who had not heard the original testimony, and (2) an…
HERRMANN VS. HERRMANN (CHILD CUSTODY)
Feb 8, 202424-04791 · 86246-COA · Nevada (SCOTN/COA)
Dismissed in part and affirmed in part.The court addressed jurisdiction, then reached the merits of three challenges. As to jurisdiction over the order setting a vexatious litigant hearing, the court held that no statute or court rule authorizes an appeal…
BARBER VS. BARBER (CHILD CUSTODY)
Feb 17, 202222-05304 · 83201-COA · Nevada (SCOTN/COA)
Reversed and remanded ("ORDER this matter REVERSED AND REMAND to the district court for proceedings consistent with this order").Standard of review: A motion to set aside a default judgment "is addressed largely to the sound discretion of the court, and will not be disturbed on review unless there has been an abuse of discretion." Cicerchia v.…
GORDEN VS. GORDEN (DIVORCE PROPERTY & ALIMONY)
Sep 19, 197793 Nev. 494, 569 P.2d 397 (1977) · 8696 · Nevada Supreme Court
Affirmed.The court (Breen, D.J.) affirmed a divorce property division despite the district court's failure to make express findings classifying each asset. Where express findings are absent, the Supreme Court will imply findings…
LEMKUIL VS. LEMKUIL (DIVORCE PROPERTY & ALIMONY)
Jun 30, 197692 Nev. 423, 551 P.2d 427 (1976) · 7931 and 8037 · Nevada Supreme Court
Reversed and remanded in part (the divorce action, with instructions to award all arrearages accrued under the agreement to the date of the divorce decree); affirmed in part (the dismissal of the collateral action).The court (Mowbray, J.) decided a consolidated appeal arising from a divorce action and a collateral action to enforce a 1966 separation and property settlement agreement. The agreement required Norman to pay $400 per…
GIORGI VS. GIORGI (DIVORCE PROPERTY & ALIMONY)
Jan 5, 196177 Nev. 1, 358 P.2d 115 (1961) · 4307 · Nevada Supreme Court
Modified and, as modified, affirmed, with costs to appellant. ("It is ordered that the provisions of the judgment be modified accordingly and, as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, with costs to appellant.")On the wife's appeal from the property portion of a divorce decree, the husband sought restoration of separate funds contributed toward a jointly held home. Both parties accepted that separate funds paid toward property…
LESLEY VS. LESLEY (DIVORCE)
Jun 17, 1997113 Nev. 727; 941 P.2d 451 · 29116 · Nevada Supreme Court
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.The court reversed the denial of an NRCP 60(b)(1) motion to set aside a default divorce decree. Under NRCP 60(b), the district court has wide discretion, but that discretion cannot be sustained absent competent evidence…
Every summary is independently verified against the source opinion; summaries are informational research aids, not legal advice, and no substitute for reading the decision. Topic groupings are derived automatically from each case’s category tag and cited statutes; a case may appear under two topics.