Case Number: 2020-004174


This is an appeal and cross-appeal from a district court order granting a motion to set aside divorce decree. This appeal and cross-appeal arise from a rather complicated series of divorce proceedings between appellant/cross-respondent and respondent/cross appellant. It appears that the parties both filed for divorce in the eighth judicial district court, then pursuant to a stipulation had the case dismissed. Appellant/cross-respondent then filed a complaint for separate maintenance. The court in that matter stated that Respondent/cross appellant “has a diminished mental capacity and lacks the ability to comprehend legal documents, or make judgments as to legal matters” and appointed counsel. That case, as well, was dismissed pursuant to a stipulation, which was not signed by appointed counsel. The parties again filed for divorce in the same court and again the case was dismissed pursuant to a stipulation. On the same day the case was dismissed in the eighth judicial district court, the parties filed a joint petition for summary decree of divorce in the fifth judicial district court seeking sole legal custody (the instant case). After being informed that the court would not grant sole custody without a hearing, the parties filed an amended joint petition for summary decree of divorce seeking joint legal custody. That decree of divorce was filed and Respondent/cross appellant filed an ex parte application to seal the court record. At that time, the circuit court of Faulkner County, Arkansas appointed temporary co-guardians of the person and estate of Respondent/cross appellant. Counsel on behalf of Respondent/cross appellant filed a motion to unseal the Nevada court record. Counsel on behalf of Respondent/cross appellant filed a motion pursuant to Rule 60(b) to set aside the decree of divorce as fraudulently obtained, to dismiss the joint petition for divorce with prejudice, and to sanction Appellant/cross-respondent for forum shopping and perpetrating a fraud upon the court in the full amount of plaintiff’s fees and costs. The court granted the set aside, and found that Appellant/cross-respondent had perpetrated a fraud upon the court, in direct violation of NRCP ll(b)(l) and (b)(3), and had misrepresented Respondent/cross appellant’s agreements and consent to agreement so as to “shock the court”. The court sanctioned Appellant/cross-respondent and granted attorney fees to the temporary guardians. Appellant/cross-respondent filed a motion for reconsideration, which the court denied without respondent being present, despite the court wishing her to be so. The district court denied the motion for reconsideration. Both Appellant/cross-respondent and Respondent/cross appellant have filed an appeal and cross-appeal in this matter. The appeal and cross-appeal appear to broadly raise the same arguments. The parties generally argue that the district court abused its discretion by allowing counsel on behalf of respondent to file the rule 60(b) motion and for allowing an award of attorney fees to be granted to the awarded, temporary guardians. Due to the prior issues in this case regarding competency of Respondent/cross appellant and what appears to be a pattern of Appellant/cross-respondent misrepresenting Respondent/cross appellant’s arguments and agreements.

Case Number: 2020-007821


Less than a month after entry of the parties’ divorce decree, appellant filed
a petition and a motion to terminate his parental rights. The district court
granted the motion. A few months later, apparently after his release from
prison, appellant moved to reconsider the order terminating his parental
rights, arguing that circumstances had changed and he was coerced into
moving to terminate his rights. Appellant appeals from the order denying
his motion for reconsideration.