ELDER VS. ELDER (FAMILY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The Court of Appeals reviewed the order denying modification of child support for an abuse of discretion, citing Backman v. Gelbman, 141 Nev., Adv. Op. 8, 565 P.3d 330, 333 (Ct. App. 2025), and noting that an abuse of discretion occurs when findings are not supported by substantial evidence, citing Rivero v. Rivero, 125 Nev. 410, 428, 216 P.3d 213, 226 (2009), overruled on other grounds by Romano v. Romano, 138 Nev. 1, 6, 501 P.3d 980, 984 (2022). Quoting Rivero, the court restated the modification standard: "[T]he district court only has authority to modify a child support order upon finding that there has been a change in circumstances since the entry of the order and the modification is in the best interest of the child." Applying that framework, the court observed that Maria's notice of appeal designated only the March 2025 order denying her second motion to modify, yet her informal opening brief did not address the district court's determination that there was no factual or legal basis warranting modification. Because she presented no cogent argument concerning the challenged order — specifically, no showing of a change in circumstances warranting modification and that modification is in the children's best interest — she failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion. The court invoked Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Rest., 122 Nev. 317, 330 n.38, 130 P.3d 1280, 1288 n.38 (2006), for the proposition that it need not consider claims unsupported by cogent arguments. To the extent Maria challenged the September 2022 divorce decree (which found the prenuptial agreement valid) and the October 2023 order setting the initial child support obligation, the court held those arguments were required to have been raised in a timely appeal from the October 2023 order, citing NRAP 3A(b)(1) (a final judgment is an independently appealable determination) and Healy v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft, 103 Nev. 329, 331, 741 P.2d 432, 433 (1987) (an untimely appeal fails to invoke the appellate court's jurisdiction and must be dismissed). That portion of the appeal was dismissed as untimely. In footnotes, the court denied Maria's motion to submit new evidence because appellate review is limited to the evidence contained in the record and the motion concerned actions occurring after the notice of appeal was filed, citing Carson Ready Mix v. First Nat'l Bank of Nev., 97 Nev. 474, 476, 635 P.2d 276, 277 (1981), and NRS 177.165. The court also denied Kevin's request for sanctions against Maria. The opinion additionally notes that the original settlement stipulation regarding Kevin's income was entered in light of the recent enactment of NAC 425.120, which required either a stipulation to the parties' monthly gross incomes or a judicial determination of them.

In plain language

Maria and Kevin Elder married in 2012 and have two children. When they divorced in 2020, both agreed that a prenuptial agreement — a contract signed before marriage — validly waived community property and alimony, and they stipulated to joint legal and physical custody of the children. That left one issue for the trial court: how much child support Kevin would pay. At a December 2021 hearing, the parties announced a settlement under which, instead of monthly child support payments, Kevin would fund a trust that would pay out money to Maria for the children's expenses. For purposes of that stipulation, they agreed Kevin's monthly gross income was $500,000. But the settlement fell apart when the parties could not agree on the trust's terms, and the district court declined to enforce it because it was premised on Kevin's child support being nonmodifiable and on the court giving up jurisdiction over future child support issues. The court entered a divorce decree in September 2022 and set an evidentiary hearing on child support for October 2023. Maria fired her lawyer and did not attend that hearing. Kevin presented evidence that his average monthly gross income was $125,000, and in October 2023 the court set his child support obligation at $8,000 per month under the child support guidelines. Maria did not appeal that decision. A year later, in October 2024, Maria asked the court to modify child support, arguing it should have used the $500,000 income figure from the failed settlement, which would have entitled her to roughly $32,000 per month. The court denied the motion, finding she had not alleged any changed circumstances, and she did not appeal. In January 2025, she filed two largely identical motions making the same argument. The district court denied them, essentially determining that Maria failed to demonstrate changed circumstances warranting review and that she failed to establish a factual or legal basis for relief. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed. It explained that a court can only modify child support when circumstances have changed since the last order and the change serves the children's best interest. Maria's brief did not address the March 2025 order she was actually appealing; instead it attacked the earlier 2022 decree and 2023 support order. Because challenges to those earlier rulings had to be raised in a timely appeal from the October 2023 order, the court dismissed that portion of her appeal as untimely. The court also denied Maria's motion to submit new evidence, because appellate review is limited to the record and the motion concerned events occurring after the notice of appeal was filed, and it denied Kevin's request to sanction Maria.