MUSCELLI VS. MUSCELLI (DIVORCE PROPERTY & ALIMONY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The Court (per curiam) reversed a summary judgment for the respondent, holding that genuine issues of material fact remained on the appellant's claim to set aside a divorce decree and property settlement agreement for extrinsic fraud. Extrinsic fraud consists of fraud that prevents the opposing party from knowing its rights or defenses, or from having a fair opportunity to present them at trial, and a judgment so obtained may later be set aside. Murphy v. Murphy, 65 Nev. 264, 193 P.2d 850 (1948); Lauer v. District Court, 62 Nev. 78, 140 P.2d 953 (1943). On review of a summary judgment, the record is construed most favorably to the party against whom judgment was rendered. Berge v. Fredericks, 95 Nev. 183, 591 P.2d 246 (1979). So construed, the record disclosed that respondent threatened to inflict physical violence on appellant, to spread malicious rumors against her, and to send an adopted child back to its natural parents, and that appellant, succumbing to this coercion, acquiesced in the property settlement terms and the choice of counsel dictated by respondent. The Court distinguished Applebaum v. Applebaum, 93 Nev. 382, 566 P.2d 85 (1977), and Calvert v. Calvert, 61 Nev. 168, 122 P.2d 426 (1942), because both rest on the premise that the complaining party had free access to an attorney of her own choosing. It held that appellant's allegations, supported by sworn complaint and affidavit, were sufficient to maintain an action based on extrinsic fraud, and reversed and remanded for trial.

In plain language

The former wife filed a lawsuit seeking to set aside her divorce decree and the property settlement agreement that went with it, claiming they were the product of 'extrinsic fraud' - fraud that keeps a person from knowing or presenting their rights and defenses. The trial court granted summary judgment against her, effectively deciding there was nothing to try. She appealed, arguing that important facts were genuinely in dispute. The Nevada Supreme Court agreed with her and reversed. In reviewing a summary judgment, a court must look at the evidence in the light most favorable to the person who lost below. Viewed that way, the record showed that her former husband had threatened to physically harm her, to spread malicious rumors about her, and to send an adopted child back to its natural parents, and that, giving in to this pressure, she went along with the property settlement terms and even the choice of lawyer that he dictated. The court distinguished two earlier decisions the husband relied on, noting that both of those rested on the fact that the complaining spouse had free access to an attorney of her own choosing - which was exactly what was disputed here. Because her allegations, backed by a sworn complaint and affidavit, were enough to support a claim of extrinsic fraud, the case was reversed and sent back for a trial.