STOCKS VS. STOCKS (CHILD SUPPORT)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

Appeal from an order changing the place of trial from White Pine County to Clark County (the defendant's residence) in a guardian's action for a child's support and reimbursement of expenses. Held: under N.C.L. secs. 8571-8572, a defendant's timely written demand that trial be had in his county of residence makes the change of venue mandatory; upon such a demand the original district court is ousted of jurisdiction except to decide the fact of residence, and it cannot entertain the plaintiff's counter-motion to retain the case for convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice, which must be addressed to the transferee court. Bound by Williams v. Keller, 6 Nev. 141, and declining to overrule it on stare decisis grounds notwithstanding contrary California decisions (e.g., Loehr v. Latham, 15 Cal. 418) construing the analogous statute from which Nevada's derived, the court affirmed, observing that the plaintiff may renew her convenience motion in Clark County.

In plain language

A mother, acting as court-appointed guardian of the parties' 27-year-old epileptic and incompetent son, sued the father in White Pine County for the son's past and future support and medical expenses. The father, who lived in Clark County, demanded that the case be moved to his home county. The mother objected, explaining that the son's fragile health and her lack of money made travel to Las Vegas nearly impossible, and that the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice favored keeping the case in White Pine County. The trial court ordered the case moved to Clark County, and the mother appealed. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed. Under the venue statute, when a defendant timely demands trial in his county of residence, the change is mandatory, and once the demand is granted the original court loses jurisdiction to weigh convenience of witnesses; that motion must instead be made in the new county. Bound by its 1870 decision in Williams v. Keller and applying the doctrine of stare decisis, the court declined to overrule that rule despite contrary California authority. It noted, sympathetically, that the mother could still ask the Clark County court to move the case back.