Tuesday, May 28th, 2019 - Carson City - Gibbons/Tao/Bulla

Galietti vs. De La Torre (Child Custody)
Docket Number: 76027-COA
Carson City - 2:00 P.M. - Court of Appeals

This appeal concerns a child custody order. Appellant challenges a district court order denying his motion to modify child custody and awarding respondent attorney fees.

ISSUES:

Did the district court abuse its discretion when it (1) denied appellant’s motion to modify legal and physical custody, when appellant asserts that it was previously recommended that a 50/50 timeshare be implemented in the future and that respondent abuses her sole legal custody over certain decisions; (2) issued a mutual behavior order despite assertedly failing to make findings in support of the order; (3) denied appellant’s request for child support even though the parties’ tax return information was placed into the record; and (4) ordered appellant to pay respondent’s attorney fees?

Disclaimer:

This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Court of Appeals. It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties.

Iliva-Klimas vs. Estupinian (Child Custody)
Docket Number: 75279-COA
Carson City - 2:30 P.M. - Court of Appeals

This case arises from a child custody dispute between appellant Nedka Ilieva-Klimas and respondent Raymond Estupinian. After years of litigation, the parties eventually stipulated to Estupinian having temporary primary physical custody of their minor child, and that agreement was reflected in a later district court order. However, months later, Klimas moved the district court to vacate the temporary custody order and to order joint physical custody. Without holding a hearing, the district court denied Klimas’ motion.

ISSUES:

(1) Does this court have jurisdiction to consider the appeal? (2) Did the district court violate Klimas’ due process rights by sua sponte modifying custody to award Estupinian permanent physical custody? (3) Did the district court abuse its discretion when it considered evidence predating prior orders in denying Klimas’ motion? (4) Did the district court abuse its discretion when it found that Klimas failed to meet her burden to modify custody and found that she did not show adequate cause to hold an evidentiary hearing? (5) Did the district court abuse its discretion in denying Klimas’ request for make-up visitations? (6) Did the district court err in finding that Klimas’ motion was largely frivolous and stating that it would hold a hearing in the future to determine if Klimas was vexatious if she filed another motion?

Disclaimer:

This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Court of Appeals. It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties.