Overcoming the parental preference to obtain custody

Posted by on Sep 22, 2015 in Uncategorized | 0 comments

Recently, the Brewer Blau Law Group obtained sole legal and sole physical custody for grandparents over the opposition of a parent. The law favors parental custody. The United States Supreme Court has determined that being a parent is a fundamental right. However, in Nevada, it is possible for someone other than a parent to overcome the parental preference and obtain custody of a child.  NRS 125.500  mandates that in order to award custody to one other than a parent, the court must first that an award of custody to a parent would be detrimental to the child and the award to a nonparent is required to serve the best interest of the child. Additionally, case law makes an  important distinction whether the loss of custody by the parent was voluntary of involuntary and then sets out a lengthy list of factor which constitute “extraordinary circumstances” which must be met prior to granting custody to a nonparent.  Contact the Brewer Blau Law Group to discuss your cusotdy rights today.

Interspousal Torts under Landreth

Posted by on May 27, 2015 in Uncategorized | 0 comments

The Brewer Blau Law Group recently filed a Landreth v. Malik motion to remove a husband’s tort claims against wife from civil court to be consolidated with their divorce.  The issue: Can a spouse sue the other spouse in civil court when they have a preexisting divorce action in family court which involves facts which substantially overlap those that will determine child custody and support?  The Supreme court of Nevada seems to have answered that question in Landreth. The family court should hear all matters between two parties in a meretricious (marriage like) relationship. however, consolidation in the family court is not mandatory so it is up the court to determine if a separate action survives or is merged into the divorce.

The Doan case holding remedied

Posted by on May 27, 2015 in Uncategorized | 0 comments

AB362 was recently signed into law, formally adopting the law of partition of omitted assets (effective October 1, 2015). This law remedies the onerous holding in the Doan decision, which made it relatively easy for a spouse to avoid community property distribution of an asset that would otherwise be partitioned.

Child Support In Nevada

Posted by on Apr 7, 2015 in Uncategorized | 0 comments

Currently, child support in Nevada is largely a creature of statute. If a party has primary physical custody, the other party will be ordered to pay a fixed percentage of their gross monthly salary (before taxes) depending on the number of children supported. In a joint physical custody situation, the court will compare incomes, calculate statutory child support and offset one from the other.

There are deductions from statutory child support enumerated in NRS 125.080(9) for such things as the cost of health insurance, the cost of child care, any special educational needs of the child, etc. However, there is no formula to calculate a reduction for these “sub 9” offsets. Typically, a judge will reduce child support for $50-$100 per month for each. This blunderbuss approach seems unfair. The legislature needs to take a closer look at these offsets and add some language to the statute reflecting the importance these costs have on both obliges and obligors and calculate offsets accordingly.

The Bluestein Case and its effect on custody modification

Posted by on Mar 31, 2015 in Uncategorized | 1 comment

The Supreme Court of Nevada recently issued its ruling in Bluestein v. Bluestein.  Before Bluestein, a party could seek reclassification of joint physical arrangement to one of primary if it could be shown that one party has de facto primary physical custody, i.e. the other party did not exercise custody at least 40% of the time over the past calendar year.  As long as such a reclassification was in the best interest of the child, the modification could occur without a trial. Bluestein however, seems to undermine the importance of de facto primary physical custody and relegates that status to merely that of a “tool”  to be used by the district court in a trial to modify custody. Thus, it appears as if an often used route to custody modification has been eliminated or severely truncated.  Best interest of the child remains the sole, or paramount consideration for custody modification.

Modification of Custody In Nevada Under Rivero

Posted by on Feb 24, 2015 in Uncategorized | 0 comments

In 2009, The Supreme Court of Nevada, in the Rivero v. Rivero case created a bright line 40% threshold of “custodial time” over an applicable look back period that a parent must exercise in order to maintain, or obtain, joint physical custody. Although a trial court must still make specific findings concerning best interest of the child, the Rivero case created an alternative method of modifying custody orders by looking back to determine how much custody time a parent has actually utilized. However, Rivero did not precisely determine how custodial time is defined.  The Court is expected to refine (and define) it’s holding in Rivero in the upcoming Bluestein case, recently argued before the Court.

Stay tuned for analysis of this important new case.

Community Asset Distribution

Posted by on Jan 28, 2015 in Uncategorized | 0 comments

Often a client will want to keep encumbered community real estate for sentimental or investment reasons. However, this decision must be dispassionately assessed and made based on sound economics. Buying out the other party results in a cash payment, literally money in the bank, for the other party. The holder of the property has the potential for an increase in value, but, of course, there is no guarantee the value will appreciate.  If a client simply cannot afford to assume additional debt, the asset should be sold and the proceeds divided, despite a desire to retain the property.


The Nevada Appeals Court

Posted by on Jan 9, 2015 in Uncategorized | 0 comments

This past November Nevada voters approved the creation of a “push down” appeals court. A push down court means that the Supreme Court determines what cases it wishes to hear (although some are mandatory) and what it wants to “push down” to the appellate level. Under amended NRAP Rules, family cases are presumptively pushed down, except for termination of parental rights cases and cases of first impression.  While the 3 appellate judges are excellent choices, the appellate court cannot set precedent.  Given the sparsity  of case law on some vitally important issues that effect families in Nevada, we will have to wait and see if the Supreme Court fulfills its responsibility to provide more case law guidance in interpreting statutes.

Relocation With Special Needs Children

Posted by on Jul 23, 2013 in Uncategorized | 0 comments

The Brewer Blau Law Group has recently litigated several relocation cases which involved special needs child/children.   Relocation cases concern the primary physical custodian’s efforts to obtain an order permitting relocation with the minor child/children out of Nevada. These cases are usually contentious as the moving party must show that the move is in good faith and that the child/children will have an actual advantage at the new location. Also, all of the Schwartz factors must be met.  Add to that needs of  the child/children who require(s) significant therapeutic preparation both before relocation and after, and the complexity and difficulty of such cases becomes obvious.  A rule of thumb is that the Court considers any child/children with an I.E.P  ( individualized educational plan)  to be a special needs child. This includes diagnosis such as autism, down syndrome, developmental delay, ADHD, dyslexia and even speech impediments.