Tuesday, January 24, 2023 - Court of Appeals
January 24, 2023, Oral Arguments
Jahed vs. Abraham
Las Vegas – 2:00 p.m. – Court of Appeals
Freelove vs. Freelove
Las Vegas – 3:00 p.m. – Court of Appeals
Jahed vs. Abraham
Docket No. 82749-COA
Las Vegas – 2:00 p.m. – Court of Appeals
Abraham and Jahed participated in an Islamic Nikah marriage ceremony in Virginia in January 2016. Because of a winter storm, they were unable to obtain a marriage license in advance of the ceremony. The Imam agreed to perform the ceremony based on the couple’s assurances that they would obtain a marriage license following the ceremony to validate their marriage. Jahed contends that Abraham indicated he would obtain the marriage license and ensure it was properly filed.
Following the ceremony, they did not obtain a marriage license. Over the next three years, based on the conduct of Abraham and Jahed, it was unclear whether they intended to hold themselves out to the public as husband and wife. On May 28, 2017, Jahed gave birth to a baby girl, KA, and because the parties were not married, Abraham was required to sign a declaration of paternity. Jahed argues that this was the first time she learned that she and Abraham did not have a valid marriage. Eventually, Abraham moved for primary physical custody of KA, and Jahed counterclaimed for financial benefits under the doctrine of putative spouse. Abraham moved for summary judgment on Jahed’s putative spouse claim, arguing that the doctrine did not apply as a matter of law because at the time of the marriage ceremony both parties understood the ceremony was not valid because they had not obtained a marriage license. On February 3, 2021, without an evidentiary hearing, the district court entered a minute order granting Abraham’s summary judgment motion finding that the putative spouse doctrine did not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case to provide Jahed with financial benefits. The single issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment on Jahed’s putative spouse claim.
Freelove vs. Freelove
Docket No. 82732-COA
Las Vegas – 3:00 p.m. – Court of Appeals
Justin and Lynsey Freelove were married. They are now divorced and share legal custody of their minor child. Lynsey has primary physical custody of the child. A child support order was entered requiring Justin to pay child support to Lynsey. After Justin relocated and changed jobs, his income decreased by over 20% and he sought modification of the original child support order. A court master conducted a hearing on Justin’s motion and recommended that the order remain unchanged. When no objections were filed to the master’s findings and recommendation, the district court approved the findings and recommendations which have the full effect of an order. Justin now appeals the findings and recommendations. The issues on appeal are whether: (1) Justin waived his right to appeal when he failed to object to the master’s findings and recommendation; (2) the court master abused his discretion by determining there was not a change of circumstances justifying modification of the child support order; (3) the court master erred by not making specific findings as to the relevant modification factors; and (4) the court master erred by allowing assessments of interest and penalties on child support arrears.