March 25, 2025, Oral Arguments
Pearson vs. Pearson (Child Custody)
William S. Boyd School of Law – 10:30 a.m. – Court of Appeals
Goldberg, Kershen & Altmann, LLC vs. Kreiser c/w 88209
William S. Boyd School of Law – 11:00 a.m. – Court of Appeals
Pearson vs. Pearson (Child Custody)
Docket No. 89033-COA
William S. Boyd School of Law – 10:30 a.m. – Court of Appeals
This is an appeal from a district court order denying a motion to relocate and for primary physical custody. Appellant Jon Pearson and Respondent Melissa Pearson shared joint physical custody of their two minor children following their divorce in 2019. Jon subsequently accepted an offer for a job located in Austin, Texas and filed a motion for primary custody for the purpose of relocating. The district court denied the motion and entered an order awarding Melissa primary physical custody of the children. The following issues are presented in this appeal: (1) whether the district court’s findings are owed deference; (2) whether the district court erred by finding there was no substantial change in circumstances affecting the welfare of the children; (3) whether the district court erred by finding there was no actual advantage for the children to relocate to Texas; (4) whether the district court erred by finding that relocation was not in the children’s best interests; (5) whether the district court erred by finding the relocation factors set forth in NRS 125C.007(2) disfavored relocation; (6) whether the district court erred by awarding Melissa attorney fees and costs; (7) whether the district court violated Jon’s due process rights.
Goldberg, Kershen & Altmann, LLC vs. Kreiser c/w 88209
Docket No. 87677-COA
William S. Boyd School of Law – 11:00 a.m. – Court of Appeals
These are consolidated appeals from district court orders granting a motion to dismiss and post-judgment motion for attorney fees and sanctions in an unjust enrichment action. In 2008, respondent Chad Kreiser and his ex-wife obtained title to the subject property, which is a residence in Henderson. The property was thereafter damaged in a fire and its physical structure was removed, leaving only the concrete foundation and a driveway. Later, Kreiser had a workplace accident that left him unable to work, permanently disabled, and with some memory and focus impairment. For the next several years, Kreiser did not pay the property taxes on the property. Eventually, appellant Goldberg, Kershen & Almann, LLC, paid approximately $3,000 in back taxes for the property and had a fence built around the lot. Goldberg then commenced the underlying proceeding against Kreiser, asserting a claim for unjust enrichment in the operative complaint. Kreiser filed a motion to dismiss as well as a motion for NRCP 11 sanctions and attorney fees and costs, arguing that the action was baseless. The district court granted each of Kreiser's motions but made a small reduction to the requested attorney fee award. Goldberg now appeals, challenging the district court's dismissal order, attorney fees and costs award, and sanctions order.