PETERSEN VS. PETERSEN (DIVORCE PROPERTY & ALIMONY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court reversed the denial of the wife's NRCP 60(b) motion to set aside a default divorce judgment and property settlement, holding the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion as untimely. The wife, unrepresented throughout, alleged her attorney-husband urged her to sign the settlement without counsel and failed to disclose accurate community assets; the complaint and settlement were filed three days after she asked for a divorce, with default and judgment entered the same day. She discovered the disparity (a $758,900 net worth against her $82,666 share) about 90 days later, retained counsel, and the motion was filed one day short of six months after judgment. The court reiterated that Rule 60(b)'s salutary purpose is to redress injustices resulting from excusable neglect or the wrongs of an opposing party, and that the rule should be liberally construed to effectuate that purpose. Nevada Industrial Development, Inc. v. Benedetti, 103 Nev. 360, 364, 741 P.2d 802, 805 (1987). On these facts, dismissal for failure to file within a 'reasonable time' was error: the motion fell within the outermost six-month limit; the wife sought to assert her rights within roughly 90 days of judgment; the questionable timeliness was due largely to her attorney's delay in preparing the motion; and she had never had an opportunity to challenge the settlement's fairness because it was taken by default. The court did not reach the merits of the fraud allegation and remanded for the district court to determine whether the wife's allegations of injustice are substantial enough to support setting aside the judgment and decree.

In plain language

After five years of marriage, Donna Petersen told her husband, Steven, that she wanted a divorce. Steven was an attorney experienced in handling divorces. He drew up the divorce papers and a property settlement agreement, and - according to Donna - urged her to sign without her own lawyer and did not accurately disclose the couple's assets. Just three days after Donna first asked for the divorce, Steven filed everything, a default was entered, and judgment was granted the same day. Donna never had a lawyer during any of this. About 90 days later, Donna came across a financial statement showing the couple was worth $758,900 - yet under the settlement she had received only $82,666. She immediately hired an attorney, who advised her the split was unfair and set about preparing a motion to set the decree aside under Rule 60(b). Her attorney took about another 90 days, so the motion ended up being filed one day short of six months after the judgment. The trial judge denied the motion. He acknowledged it was filed within Rule 60(b)'s six-month outer limit, but ruled it still was not filed within a 'reasonable time' as the rule requires. Donna appealed. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed. It stressed that Rule 60(b) exists to correct injustices caused by excusable neglect or the wrongdoing of the other party, and it should be read liberally to serve that purpose. Under these facts, denying the motion as untimely was error: it was filed within the six-month limit, Donna moved to assert her rights only about 90 days after judgment, and the delay was mostly her attorney's doing. She had never had a chance to challenge the fairness of the settlement, which had been entered by default. The court did not decide whether Steven actually committed fraud; it sent the case back so the trial court could determine whether Donna's allegations of injustice were serious enough to justify setting the decree aside.