Stanton v. Stanton (Child Custody)
80910
| Nev. | Mar 3, 2022Background
- Dennis and Twyla Stanton filed multiple divorce actions: two in the Eighth Judicial District (both dismissed) and one in the Fifth Judicial District that resulted in a divorce decree.
- In the Eighth District proceedings respondent (Twyla) was appointed counsel after the court determined she had diminished capacity; earlier filings were not disclosed in later proceedings.
- After the Fifth District decree, Twyla relocated to Arkansas where her parents obtained a guardianship and moved to set aside the Nevada divorce decree.
- The parties reconciled and remarried; at the hearing on the guardians’ motion, Dennis’s counsel agreed to set aside the decree as moot and the district court granted the motion, dismissing the joint petition with prejudice.
- The district court also awarded the guardians’ temporary guardian attorney fees as sanctions against Dennis for committing a fraud upon the court by failing to disclose the Eighth District proceedings. Both parties appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellant waived challenge to setting aside the divorce decree | Stanton: he can challenge the order on appeal | Guardians/Twyla: Stanton agreed at hearing and therefore waived any challenge | Waived — appellant agreed to set aside; respondent also waived because guardians prosecuted motion and she did not intervene; court affirmed setting-aside (and ruled on merits) |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in setting aside the decree for fraud upon the court | Stanton: no fraud or insufficient proof | Guardians/Twyla: failure to disclose prior Eighth District proceedings was fraud upon the court | Affirmed — district court held a hearing; record supports clear-and-convincing evidence of fraud; NRCP 60(d)(3) permits setting aside for fraud upon the court |
| Whether the guardians/respondent had standing to seek setting aside and to be treated as aggrieved | Stanton: (implied) guardians lacked standing or respondent should have opposed | Guardians/Twyla: guardians had authority; respondent had notice and did not oppose; guardians acted on respondent’s behalf | Waived by respondent; court noted guardians pursued the motion and respondent did not intervene, so appealability not established by respondent |
| Whether sanctions (attorney fees) against appellant were proper | Stanton: sanction procedure under NRCP 11(c)(2) not followed; no safe-harbor | Guardians/Twyla: sanctions justified for fraud upon the court | Reversed — district court abused its discretion because NRCP 11(c)(2) requires a separate motion, service, and 21-day cure period that were not provided |
Key Cases Cited
- Old Aztec Mine, Inc. v. Brown, 97 Nev. 49, 623 P.2d 981 (1981) (issues not raised in the trial court are waived on appeal)
- NC-DSH, Inc. v. Garner, 125 Nev. 647, 218 P.3d 853 (2009) (motions to set aside for fraud upon the court are reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Watson Rounds v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 131 Nev. 783, 358 P.3d 228 (2015) (sanctions/attorney-fee awards reviewed for abuse of discretion)