Grossman v. Grossman (Child Custody)

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: July 24, 2013
• Docket: 59833
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

visitation determinations. See Wallace v. Wallace, 112 Nev. 1015, 1019, 922 P.2d 541, 543 (1996) (providing that child custody decisions rest within the district court's sound discretion). The district court made findings under the factors set forth in NRS 125.480(4) and determined that the custody and visitation arrangement was in the children's best interests. See NRS 125.480(1) (stating that in determining child custody, the court's sole consideration is the child's best interest). The district court's factual findings are supported by substantial evidence. See Rico v. Rodriguez, 121 Nev. 695, 701, 120 P.3d 812, 816 (2005). Appellant next contends that the district court abused its discretion in denying his requests to continue the trial based on discovery issues and a change in trial counsel. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the requests. See Bongiovi v. Sullivan, 122 Nev. 556, 570, 138 P.3d 433, 444 (2006). Finally, appellant contends that the district court abused its discretion in ruling that the Hummer vehicle was community property rather than appellant's separate property. In support of this argument, appellant identifies his testimony that he purchased the vehicle with proceeds from his personal injury settlement. See NRS 123.130(2) (providing that all property acquired by a spouse as an award for personal injury damages is separate property). Appellant has identified no documentary evidence in support of this claim, however, and the district court found that appellant failed to establish clear and convincing evidence tracing the personal injury settlement to the purchase of the vehicle. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion as to this issue. See Shydler v. Shydler, 114 Nev. 192, 196, 954 P.2d 37, 39

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A (1998) (explaining that this court reviews a district court's decision regarding divorce proceedings for an abuse of discretion). Accordingly, having concluded that appellant's contentions are without merit, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

J. Hardesty

P 0.4.01t Parraguirre

cc: Hon. Bill Henderson, District Judge, Family Court Division Robert E. Gaston, Settlement Judge Stephens, Gourley & Bywater Barnes Law Group Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) I947A

ilWAIENC22 111 EaSE