EDWARDS VS. SANTOYO (CHILD CUSTODY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The Court of Appeals reviewed the district court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo, citing Ogawa v. Ogawa, 125 Nev. 660, 667, 221 P.3d 699, 704 (2009). It applied the deferential standard to the underlying factual findings, which "will be upheld if not clearly erroneous and if supported by substantial evidence," id. at 668, 221 P.3d at 704, with substantial evidence defined as "evidence that a reasonable person may accept as adequate to sustain a judgment," Ellis v. Carucci, 123 Nev. 145, 149, 161 P.3d 239, 242 (2007). On the divorce claim, the court applied NRS 125.020(2), under which the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to grant a divorce unless either party resided in Nevada "for a period of not less than 6 weeks preceding the commencement of the action." The opinion cited Vaile v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 118 Nev. 262, 268-69, 44 P.3d 506, 511 (2002), abrogated on other grounds by Senjab v. Alhulaibi, 137 Nev. 632, 634, 497 P.3d 618, 620 (2021), for its analysis of NRS 125.020(2). On the custody claim, the court explained that the UCCJEA, codified as NRS Chapter 125A, exclusively governs subject matter jurisdiction over child custody issues, citing NRS 125A.305(2) and Friedman v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 127 Nev. 842, 847, 264 P.3d 1161, 1165 (2011). Under NRS 125A.305(1)(a), Nevada courts have jurisdiction over a child custody determination if Nevada was the child's home state when the action was commenced or if Nevada "was the home state of the child within 6 months before the commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent from this State but a parent or person acting as a parent continues to live in this State." Home state is defined by NRS 125A.085(1) as "[t]he state in which a child lived with a parent or a person acting as a parent for at least 6 consecutive months, including any temporary absence from the state, immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding." The court framed the jurisdictional inquiry under both NRS 125.020(2) and NRS 125A.305(1) as turning on how long Edwards and the child lived in Nevada — a question of fact for the district court, citing Vaile, 118 Nev. at 271, 44 P.3d at 512 ("Residency is a question of fact to be determined by the district court."). The district court found, based on the testimony of Santoyo and Leszko, that Edwards and the child had lived in Nevada only since approximately December 1, 2023 — seven days before commencement — and noted Edwards's failure to produce documents "such as employment verification, utilities statements in her name, or a rental agreement." Applying the deferential standard, the court held the factual findings were supported by substantial evidence, declining to reweigh evidence or credibility determinations on appeal, citing Grosjean v. Imperial Palace, Inc., 125 Nev. 349, 366, 212 P.3d 1068, 1080 (2009). The court concluded the district court did not err in finding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over both the divorce and custody matters, and affirmed the dismissal.

In plain language

Charleslie Wayne Edwards and Benito Santoyo were married in Colorado and have one child together. According to the opinion, the family lived in Colorado for most of the marriage. On December 8, 2023, Edwards filed papers in a Nevada court asking for a divorce and for custody of the child. She claimed that she and the child had been living in Nevada for the previous six months, which she argued made Nevada the right place to handle the divorce and custody dispute. Santoyo asked the Nevada court to throw out the case, arguing it did not have the authority (called "jurisdiction") to hear it. He said he had already started divorce proceedings in Colorado on December 1, 2023. He also said Edwards and the child had only recently arrived in Nevada, and that Edwards had taken the child to Nevada without his knowledge or consent. Under Nevada law, a court cannot grant a divorce unless one of the spouses has lived in Nevada for at least six weeks before the case begins. And under the UCCJEA — a law that decides which state gets to handle child custody — Nevada courts generally can only rule on custody if Nevada is the child's "home state," meaning the child lived here with a parent for at least six months in a row before the case started. The court held an evidentiary hearing to figure out where Edwards and the child actually lived. Edwards testified that she and the child had lived in Nevada since April 2023, but she did not bring documents to back that up. Santoyo testified that Edwards lived with him in Colorado until November 2023. A friend of Edwards, Jesse Leszko, testified that Edwards and the child were at his Colorado home on December 1, 2023, and that Edwards had told him she lived in Colorado at that time. The district court concluded that the evidence showed Edwards had only lived in Nevada since roughly December 1, 2023 — about seven days before she filed her case. Because that did not satisfy the six-week residency requirement for divorce or the six-month "home state" requirement for custody, the court decided it lacked authority over the case and dismissed it, finding Colorado was the more appropriate place for the proceedings. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of the State of Nevada agreed with the district court. It explained that questions about how long someone lived somewhere are factual questions for the trial court to decide, and an appeals court will not re-weigh the evidence or second-guess who the trial judge found believable. Because the district court's finding was supported by adequate evidence, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal.