Skip to main content
Supreme Court of Nevada Fiat Justitia

Tuesday, November 30, 2021 - Las Vegas - J. Gibbons, J. Tao and J. Bulla

Burpee vs. Burpee
Docket Number: 80850-COA
Las Vegas - 2:30 P.M. - Court of Appeals

Appellant Darrell Burpee and respondent Pamela Burpee married in 1991 and divorced in 2014. After entry of a divorce decree, the district court issued several QDROs, the last of which awarded Pamela 100% of Darrell's retirement benefit as a penalty for failing to pay spousal support. Darrell avers that he was not given notice of the hearing during which the district court made this award, that the district court failed to issue any written findings, and that he was not provided notice of the amended QDRO until 2018, three years later. Darrell claims he only learned of the amended QDRO in 2019 when he began approaching retirement and inquired about his pension. Darrell then filed an NRCP 60 motion to set aside the amended QDRO. Following a hearing, the district court denied the motion as untimely, determining that it was filed about 20 months after written notice of the entry of the QDRO was filed and served.

ISSUES:

Darrell now appeals, arguing that (1) the district abused its discretion in modifying its divorce decree years later without making findings of fact and conclusions of law; (2) the district court erred in failing to apply the doctrine of equitable tolling to his NRCP 60 motion; (3) the district court violated his procedural due process rights by not issuing an order granting Respondent's request to amend the QDRO or ensuring that the Notice of Entry for the Amended QDRO was timely filed; and (4) the district court erred in exercising jurisdiction to modify the divorce decree without a stipulation by both parties, and outside the six-month period to set aside the decree or any provision contained in it. Pamela contends some of Darrell’s arguments were not raised below and are therefore waived on appeal.

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.