Friedman v. Eighth Judicial District Court Ex Rel. County of Clark
127 Nev. 842
| Nev. | 2011Background
- Nevada divorce decree incorporated an agreement that Nevada would have exclusive jurisdiction over future custody disputes.
- The parties and children moved to California, and California became the home state.
- Kevyn filed in Nevada (Aug. 2010) for primary physical custody; Daniel opposed jurisdiction.
- Nevada district court ruled Nevada retained jurisdiction based on the forum agreement, despite residency in California.
- Daniel registered the Nevada decree in California seeking joint custody, while Kevyn sought Nevada custody order.
- Nevada Supreme Court held that UCCJEA governs jurisdiction, California was home state, and Nevada could not retain exclusive jurisdiction based on an agreement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nevada retains jurisdiction due to the forum agreement | Friedman: agreement makes Nevada home state/jurisdiction exclusive | Friedman: UCCJEA controls; home state governs; agreement ineffective | No; agreement cannot confer jurisdiction under UCCJEA |
| Whether California as home state should determine jurisdiction or Nevada should defer | Friedman: Nevada should proceed per decree | Friedman: California has jurisdiction as home state | California has home-state jurisdiction; Nevada must defer/dismiss absent California decline |
| Whether Nevada erred by treating the pending California proceeding as irrelevant | Friedman: California proceeding not controlling | Friedman: California proceeding controls if home state | Nevada erred; California proceeding controls absent Nevada as more appropriate forum |
| Whether writ relief is appropriate to prevent improper jurisdiction | Friedman: writ should bar Nevada proceedings | Friedman: writ unnecessary | Writ granted; Nevada must stand down absent California decline |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Custody of A.C., 200 P.3d 689 (Wash. 2009) (uniformity and home-state analysis under UCCJEA)
- Sidell v. Sidell, 18 A.3d 499 (R.I. 2011) (interpretation of 'commencement' and jurisdiction under UCCJEA)
- Krebs v. Krebs, 960 A.2d 637 (Md. App. 2008) (forum consideration should not override home-state jurisdiction)
- In re A.C.S., 157 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. App. 2004) (post-divorce custody modification and jurisdiction requires appropriate forum)