April 23, 2024 Oral Arguments
Ansell vs Ansell
Las Vegas- 3:00 p.m.- Court of Appeals
Kangarlou vs. Kazim
Las Vegas- 3:45 p.m.- Court of Appeals
Ansell vs Ansell
Docket No. 83916-COA
Las Vegas- 3:00 p.m.- Court of Appeals
Irina Ansell appeals following the entry of a post-judgment order in a divorce proceeding. The divorce decree found that Irina had a $1.35 million community property interest in the appreciation Doug Ansell’s business entities, but that Irina was liable for Doug’s loans as well as unpaid income taxes. In a post-judgment order, the district court also awarded Doug attorney fees pursuant to NRS 18.010 and NRS 125.141. On appeal, Irina argues that the district court abused its discretion in calculating the appreciation value of Doug’s businesses and by violating several terms in the parties’ prenuptial agreement, including when the court declined to award her any interest in the appreciation of Doug’s real property, found there was no additional income of the parties subject to distribution, and concluded that unpaid income taxes and Doug’s debts were a community responsibility. Irina further contends that the district court abused its discretion in awarding Doug attorney fees. Doug also filed in this court a motion to dismiss Irina’s appeal to the extent that she challenges any errors in the divorce decree because her notice of appeal only referenced the post-judgment order.
Kangarlou vs. Kazim
Docket No. 85829-COA
Las Vegas- 3:45 p.m.- Court of Appeals
Saeid Kangarlou entered into an agreement with respondents Tania and Ali Kazim to rent a room. Kangarlou later filed a complaint for expedited relief against respondents in Las Vegas Justice Court asserting that the room was unlivable, causing him damages including loss of rent and medical expenses. The justice court awarded Kangarlou some monies for reimbursed rent but apparently directed Kangarlou to pursue any other damages in a different forum. Kangarlou subsequently filed a complaint seeking damages in the district court, but that court dismissed the complaint under the doctrine of claim preclusion. On appeal Kangarlou argues that: (1) the justice court’s statements expressly reserved Kangarlou’s right to bring his complaint for damages in the district court; (2) the justice court’s order is invalid for the purposes of claim preclusion because it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Kangarlou’s complaint for damages in excess of the justice court’s jurisdictional limits; (3) the justice court’s order was not final for the purposes of claim preclusion because Kangarlou’s claims were not actually litigated; and (4) public policy suggests that claim preclusion should not apply in this case.