VAILE VS. VAILE C/W 62797

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The Nevada Supreme Court resolved two questions on review: (1) the controlling child support order under UIFSA when a Nevada decree and a later Norway administrative order coexist, and (2) appellate jurisdiction over contempt findings embedded in a child support order. On the controlling-order question, the Court framed the analysis under NRS Chapter 130 (Nevada's UIFSA), noting that NRS 130.105 directs Nevada tribunals to apply Chapter 130 to foreign support orders, and that the United States has a reciprocating-country agreement with Norway under 42 U.S.C. § 659a(a) (2012). See Notice of Declaration of Foreign Countries as Reciprocating Countries for the Enforcement of Family Support (Maintenance) Obligations, 79 Fed. Reg. 49,368 (Aug. 20, 2014). The Court distinguished modification jurisdiction (governed by NRS 130.205 and NRS 130.611) from the controlling-order inquiry (governed by NRS 130.207). NRS 130.611 governs only when a Nevada tribunal attempts to modify another jurisdiction's order. Because the Norway order did not purport to modify the Nevada order, and because two competing orders existed, NRS 130.207 supplied the proper framework. NRS 130.611(3). NRS 130.207(2) provides that, where a Nevada tribunal has personal jurisdiction: (a) if only one tribunal has continuing and exclusive jurisdiction under Chapter 130, that tribunal's order controls; (b) if more than one does, the current-home-state order controls, or, absent such an order, the most recently issued order; and (c) if none does, the Nevada tribunal must issue a controlling order. The Court found the Norway order did not "clearly establish Norway's continuing and exclusive jurisdiction under NRS Chapter 130," nor did the record show that both parties consented to Norway's continuing and exclusive jurisdiction. Subsection (2)(a) therefore applied, and the Nevada order controlled. Although the district court had not followed this procedural framework, the Court affirmed under Saavedra-Sandoval v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 126 Nev. 592, 599, 245 P.3d 1198, 1202 (2010) (right-result-wrong-reason). On appellate jurisdiction over contempt, the Court reaffirmed that "[n]o rule or statute authorizes an appeal from an order of contempt." Pengilly v. Rancho Santa Fe Homeowners Ass'n, 116 Nev. 646, 649, 5 P.3d 569, 571 (2000). The order in Docket No. 62797 dealt solely with contempt, so the Court lacked jurisdiction. The order in Docket No. 61415, however, also adjudicated child support and was therefore appealable as a special order after final judgment under NRAP 3A(b)(8). Citing Lewis v. Lewis, 132 Nev., Adv. Op. 46, 373 P.3d 878, 881 (2016), the Court held that when a contempt finding or sanction is embedded in an otherwise independently appealable order, the appellate court has jurisdiction over the contempt challenge. The Court nevertheless declined to reach the merits of Vaile's contempt challenges because he failed to make cogent arguments supported by relevant authority. Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Rest., 122 Nev. 317, 330 n.38, 130 P.3d 1280, 1288 n.38 (2006). This case is the third in the Vaile line. See Vaile v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Vaile I), 118 Nev. 262, 44 P.3d 506 (2002); Vaile v. Porsboll (Vaile II), 128 Nev. 27, 268 P.3d 1272 (2012).

In plain language

This is the third time the Nevada Supreme Court has addressed the long-running divorce and child support dispute between Robert Scotlund Vaile, a U.S. citizen, and Cisilie Porsboll, a citizen of Norway. The couple married in Utah in 1990, divorced in Nevada in 1998, and their children have lived in Norway. After years of litigation, Vaile fell behind on child support, and the Nevada district court ordered him to pay arrearages and penalties and held him in contempt. The central question on this appeal was which country's child support order controls: a Nevada order or an administrative child support order later entered in Norway. Vaile argued the Norway order controls; Porsboll argued the Nevada order does. The Court sided with Porsboll. Under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), which Nevada has adopted in NRS Chapter 130, only one support order can be effective at a time. When two orders compete, NRS 130.207 sets the tiebreaker. Because the Norway order did not clearly establish Norway's "continuing and exclusive jurisdiction," and because the parties had not both agreed Norway should have such jurisdiction, the Nevada order remained the controlling one. The Court also addressed whether it could even hear Vaile's challenges to the contempt findings against him. As a general rule in Nevada, a contempt order standing alone is not appealable. Because the order in Docket No. 62797 dealt only with contempt, the Court had no jurisdiction over that appeal. But the order in Docket No. 61415 dealt with child support as well as contempt, and an order resolving child support is appealable as a special order entered after a final judgment. So the Court had authority to consider Vaile's contempt challenges packaged into that order. However, the Court declined to actually decide those challenges because Vaile did not present coherent arguments or cite relevant law to support them. The result: the district court's judgments were affirmed.