Mizrachi v. Mizrachi, 385 P.3d 982

Parties divorced by decree based on an out-of-court stipulation; decree awarded joint legal and physical custody and stated Eli "will have the minor child for the Jewish holidays every year" and Diane "will have the minor child on the Christian holidays every year," without defining which days constitute "the Jewish holidays."
Less than 10 months later Diane moved to clarify the decree after disputes arose; she argued the term meant only the first day of Hanukkah, Passover, Rosh Hashanah, and Yom Kippur (consistent with a Family Division default schedule).
Eli contended "the Jewish holidays" reasonably meant a larger set (he identified 12 Jewish holidays and full holiday spans) and that he received those days as consideration for concessions in the decree.
The district court held no evidentiary hearing; based on verified pleadings, counsel argument, and internet research, it found the term ambiguous and adopted the default schedule, granting Diane’s clarification request.
Eli appealed, arguing the court effectively modified the decree without applying proper standards and that the court failed to ascertain the parties’ intent (or construe ambiguity against the drafting party).
The Court of Appeals concluded the term was ambiguous but reversed because the district court erred by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the parties’ intent before clarifying the decree.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Eli)	Defendant's Argument (Diane)	Held
Whether the district court modified or merely clarified the decree	Court effectively modified substantive rights by narrowing the holiday term	Court only clarified an ambiguous term to a limited set of days	Court: action was a clarification (defining rights), not a substantive modification
Whether "the Jewish holidays" is ambiguous	Term unambiguously includes 12 holidays and full spans	Term unambiguously means only the four holidays listed in the default schedule	Court of Appeals: term is ambiguous because multiple reasonable meanings exist
Proper procedure for construing an ambiguous term in an agreement-based decree	Court should apply contract-construction principles and construe ambiguity against the drafter (Diane) without extra evidence	Court may adopt a default schedule without evidentiary hearing	Held: court must determine parties’ intent; evidentiary hearing required when factual disputes exist; adopting default without evidence was error
Whether the district court could resolve the dispute without an evidentiary hearing	No; factual disputes about parties’ intent required evidence	Yes; pleadings and default practice suffice	Held: district court erred by relying only on pleadings/argument; must hold evidentiary hearing to resolve intent and factual disputes

Rivero v. Rivero, 216 P.3d 213 (Nev. 2009) (parenting agreements enforceable; modification standards explained)
Bluestein v. Bluestein, 345 P.3d 1044 (Nev. 2015) (public policy encourages private custody agreements)
Kishner v. Kishner, 562 P.2d 493 (Nev. 1977) (court has power to construe its judgments to remove ambiguity)
Murphy v. Murphy, 183 P.2d 632 (Nev. 1947) (ambiguous decree construed by examining parties’ intent and record)
Aseltine v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 62 P.2d 701 (Nev. 1936) (look to surrounding circumstances and record to determine district court’s intent when decree ambiguous)
Vaile v. Porsboll, 268 P.3d 1272 (Nev. 2012) (distinguishes modification from clarification; modification alters substantive rights)
Shelton v. Shelton, 78 P.3d 507 (Nev. 2003) (interpretation of agreement-based divorce decree is a legal question)
St. Mary v. Damon, 309 P.3d 1027 (Nev. 2013) (best interest of child is paramount in custody matters)
Evans v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 5 P.3d 1043 (Nev. 2000) (appellate review of legal questions is de novo)