PAIS VS. CORRAL (CHILD CUSTODY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The Court of Appeals reviewed the custody determination for an abuse of discretion. Ellis v. Carucci, 123 Nev. 145, 149, 161 P.3d 239, 241 (2007). The court noted that while it defers to a district court's discretionary determinations, deference is not owed to legal error or to findings that are so conclusory as to mask legal error. Davis v. Ewalefo, 131 Nev. 445, 450, 352 P.3d 1139, 1142 (2015). The governing framework: the district court's sole consideration in determining custody is the best interest of the child. Ellis, 123 Nev. at 149, 161 P.3d at 242; NRS 125C.0035(1). In evaluating best interest, the district court must consider all twelve factors set forth in NRS 125C.0035(4), and a written custody decree must contain findings regarding those factors and tie the findings to the ultimate custody determination. Davis, 131 Nev. at 451, 352 P.3d at 1143 (the decree or order must tie the child's best interest, as informed by specific, relevant findings respecting the statutory factors and any other relevant factors, to the custody determination made). Applying that framework, the court found that the custody decree contained no findings regarding the child's best interest and neither addressed nor analyzed any of the twelve best interest factors under NRS 125C.0035(4). Although the record suggested the district court may have considered the factors orally at the hearing, the court held that under Davis, express, written findings were required in the decree. 131 Nev. at 451, 352 P.3d at 1143; see also Lewis v. Lewis, 132 Nev. 453, 459-60, 373 P.3d 878, 882 (2016) (requiring district courts to set forth specific findings as to the statutory best interest factors); Crosier v. Crosier, No. 87206-COA, 2024 WL 4660838, at *2 (Nev. Ct. App. Oct. 31, 2024) (Order of Reversal and Remand) (noting oral findings are insufficient as to the statutory best interest factors and the district court was required to consider all twelve factors in its written order). Given the absence of such findings in the custody decree, the court concluded the district court abused its discretion. Ellis, 123 Nev. at 149, 161 P.3d at 241. The court also rejected Corral's contention that the post-decree motion was an untimely disguised motion for reconsideration. The court explained that Pais's motion was brought under NRCP 59, which permits a party to file a motion to alter or amend a judgment within 28 days of written notice of entry of judgment, which Pais timely did. AA Primo Builders, LLC v. Washington, 126 Nev. 578, 585, 245 P.3d 1190, 1195 (2010) (looking to whether the motion is in writing, timely filed, states its grounds with particularity, and requests a substantive alteration of the judgment, not merely the correction of a clerical error, or relief of a type wholly collateral to the judgment). The court reversed the child custody decree and the order denying post-judgment relief and remanded for further proceedings. Having resolved the matter on this basis, the court did not address Pais's remaining appellate arguments. Pending remand, the court left the existing custody arrangement in place subject to modification by the district court, and noted the district court may need to revisit child support and its award of attorney fees. Davis, 131 Nev. at 455, 352 P.3d at 1146.

In plain language

Mason Pais and Grecia Corral were never married but have one young child together, born in December 2021. In August 2022, Pais went to court asking for joint legal and physical custody. Corral responded by asking for sole legal and physical custody. While the case was pending, the court temporarily ordered joint legal and physical custody until it could hold a hearing. At a November 2023 evidentiary hearing (a court proceeding where both sides present evidence and testimony), the district court made its findings out loud, on the record, and decided the parents would share joint legal custody but that Corral would have primary physical custody. The written custody decree (the court's formal written order) was entered in January 2024. That decree also required Pais to pay $394 per month in child support. Pais then filed a motion asking the court to change its decision or grant a new trial. Among other things, he argued that the court never put its reasoning into writing and never made written findings about the twelve "best interest" factors that Nevada law requires a court to consider when deciding child custody. The district court denied his motion, explaining that it had considered those factors and stated its findings out loud at the end of the hearing. The Court of Appeals reversed. The core problem, the court explained, is that a written custody decree must actually contain the court's findings about the child's best interest and must connect those findings to the custody decision. Here, the written decree contained no such findings and did not address any of the twelve statutory factors. Even though the district court may have discussed the factors out loud during the hearing, the appeals court held that spoken findings are not enough - the written order itself has to include them. Because the written decree lacked these findings, the Court of Appeals concluded the district court abused its discretion, reversed both the custody decree and the order denying Pais's motion, and sent the case back for further proceedings. In the meantime, the existing custody arrangement stays in place unless the district court changes it. The appeals court also noted that, because it reversed the custody decree, the district court may need to revisit both the child support amount and any award of attorney fees.