ALLEN VS. ALLEN

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The Court of Appeals reviewed the district court's decisions in the divorce proceeding, including the property division, alimony, and NRCP 60(b) rulings, for an abuse of discretion. See Williams v. Williams, 120 Nev. 559, 566, 97 P.3d 1124, 1129 (2004); Cook v. Cook, 112 Nev. 179, 181-82, 912 P.2d 264, 265 (1996). Under NRCP 60(b)(2), a district court may relieve a party from a final judgment or order on grounds of "newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b)." On the property division, the court applied NRS 125.150(1)(b), which requires the district court to equally divide community property unless it finds a compelling reason for an unequal distribution and sets forth its reasons in writing. Disposition of community property is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Kogod v. Cioffi-Kogod, 135 Nev. 64, 75, 439 P.3d 397, 406 (2019). The court defers to the district court's factual findings and will not disturb them unless clearly erroneous or unsupported by substantial evidence, Ogawa v. Ogawa, 125 Nev. 660, 668, 221 P.3d 699, 704 (2009), with substantial evidence being evidence a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to sustain a judgment, Ellis v. Carucci, 123 Nev. 145, 149, 161 P.3d 239, 242 (2007). Reviewing the record, the court concluded that the district court considered the assets and debts awarded to each party, calculated an offset, and ordered a $8,750 equalization payment, discerning no abuse of discretion. The court held that Valerie's vague assertion that the district court failed to account for all assets and debts was not preserved: she did not specifically identify omitted assets below, instead seeking to set aside the entire decree under NRCP 60(b), and to the extent she raised specific-asset arguments for the first time on appeal, the court declined to consider them under Old Aztec Mine, Inc. v. Brown, 97 Nev. 49, 52, 623 P.2d 981, 983 (1981) ("A point not urged in the trial court, unless it goes to the jurisdiction of that court, is deemed to have been waived and will not be considered on appeal."). On the NRCP 60(b) denial generally, the court held that Valerie failed to develop any cogent argument explaining why the district court improperly denied relief, merely noting she had discovered new evidence without explaining why it could not have been discovered earlier with reasonable due diligence. The court declined to consider the issue under Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Rest., 122 Nev. 317, 330 n.38, 180 P.3d 1280, 1288 n.38 (2006) (declining to consider issues unsupported by cogent argument). On alimony, the court noted such an award is discretionary under NRS 125.150(1)(a) and is reviewed for abuse of discretion, Schwartz v. Schwartz, 126 Nev. 87, 90, 225 P.3d 1273, 1275 (2010). The district court had found that Valerie abandoned her alimony claim at trial and failed to present evidence on the relevant factors or her need. The court found substantial evidence, including the parties' FDFs, supported the denial, and separately held that Valerie waived any challenge to the abandonment finding by failing to address it on appeal, citing Powell v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 127 Nev. 156, 161 n.3, 252 P.3d 668, 672 n.3 (2011) ("Issues not raised in an appellant's opening brief are deemed waived."). On the marriage-fraud and reimbursement claims (travel to Jamaica and immigration costs), the court held that Valerie did not address the district court's findings that her reimbursement request was not legally supported and that she failed to provide evidence of marriage fraud, so those challenges were waived under Powell. Her failure to argue the attorney-fees denial likewise waived that issue.

In plain language

Valerie Allen and Jashi Mark Allen were married in Jamaica in 2012. Valerie is a United States citizen; Jashi is a Jamaican citizen. According to the opinion, they met while Valerie was on vacation in Jamaica, and for several years Jashi lived in Jamaica while Valerie lived in Florida and visited him. In 2015, Jashi began the immigration process, and Valerie hired an attorney who obtained a United States permanent resident card for Jashi in 2017. Jashi then moved to Utah for trucking school and later relocated to Las Vegas, while Valerie stayed in Florida. The couple separated in 2018, and Jashi filed for divorce in Nevada. Valerie responded and filed a counterclaim, alleging that Jashi had used her for immigration purposes. Because the couple had no minor children, the dispute focused on dividing their property and debts, Valerie's request for spousal support (alimony), and her request to be reimbursed for money she spent to help Jashi immigrate. After a trial in March 2023, the district court entered a divorce decree in April 2023. The court found that the parties' incomes did not support an alimony award and that Valerie had, in any event, given up (abandoned) her alimony claim. The court also found no evidence that Jashi committed fraud in the marriage, and it found that Valerie's requests for reimbursement were not supported by law. The court added that even if Valerie had used her own separate funds to pay for trips and immigration costs, those funds would be treated as gifts to the marital community. The court divided the property: each party kept their own vehicles, personal property, bank accounts, and debts; Valerie kept her mobile home from before the marriage; and Jashi kept his trucking company and tractor truck. To balance things out, the court awarded Valerie a share of the equity in Jashi's tractor truck and a share of community funds used for his truck-driving training, ordering Jashi to pay Valerie $8,750 as an "equalization payment." The court denied Valerie's request for attorney fees. In May 2023, Valerie filed a motion to set aside the divorce decree, claiming that Jashi committed "perjury, slander, libel, obstruction of justice, and ha[d] made false claims" at trial, particularly about his assets. She also asked to have the district court judge removed from the case (recusal). She submitted various exhibits, including vehicle statements, photos, an online report about Jashi, attorney billing statements, medical records, and other documents. The Chief Judge denied the request to disqualify the district court judge in August 2023. The district court then denied the motion to set aside. The court noted that Valerie's own motion acknowledged that her trial counsel had already argued that Jashi inaccurately portrayed his income, so her claims of perjury and other misconduct were merely allegations. The court also found that Valerie had not shown that her new exhibits could not have been produced at the earlier hearing with reasonable diligence, because that evidence was readily accessible at the time. Valerie then appealed. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed. It concluded that the record showed the district court properly divided the community property and calculated the equalization payment, so there was no abuse of discretion. It found that Valerie had not identified specific omitted assets in the lower court and could not raise such arguments for the first time on appeal. On the motion to set aside, the court found that Valerie did not develop a cogent argument explaining why her new evidence could not have been discovered earlier. On alimony, reimbursement, marriage fraud, and attorney fees, the court found that Valerie either failed to develop arguments or failed to address the district court's specific findings, so those challenges were waived.