James v. James (Child Custody)

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: July 28, 2014
• Docket: 61834
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Having considered the civil proper person appeal statement and record on appeal, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion to set aside the December 2, 2009, order.' See Cook v. Cook, 112 Nev. 179, 181-82, 912 P.2d 264, 265 (1996) (providing that this court reviews a district court's decision on an NRCP 60(b) motion for an abuse of discretion). NRCP 60(b) requires that a motion to set aside an order for fraudS or mistake must "be made within a reasonable time, and . . . not more than 6 months after the proceeding." Although the district court denied appellant's motion on claim preclusion grounds, because the motion was filed more than six months after the December 2, 2009, order, it was untimely. See Union Petrochemical Corp. of Nev. v. Scott, 96 Nev. 337, 339, 609 P.2d 323, 324 (1980) (recognizing that a lack of diligence in moving to set aside a judgment is sufficient for denial of the motion); see also Rodriguez v. Primadonna Co., 125 Nev. 578, 591, 216 P.3d 793, 802 (2009) (explaining that "[a] district court's correct result will not be disturbed on appeal even though its decision was reached by relying on different grounds"). In regard to appellant's argument that the district court did not have the authority to hold him in contempt for failing to pay child support, we conclude that the district court did have the authority to hold appellant in contempt. See Southwest Gas Corp. v. Flintkote Co., 99 Nev. 127, 131, 659 P.2d 861, 864 (1983) (providing that a court can hold a party

'While we recognize that the child support provision was erroneously included in the district court's December 2, 2009, order, we affirm the decision here because appellant's NRCP 60(b) challenge was untimely.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A (e4 in contempt for failing to comply with a clear order of the court); see also NRS 22.010(3). Further, we conclude that the district court properly ordered appellant's wages garnished because he was failing to pay his monthly child support obligation. See NRS 125B.020 (providing that a parent has a duty to provide support for his or her child). For the reasons discussed above, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 2

, J.

11:-a-Acatra„ , J. Parraguirre

J. Saitta

cc: Hon. William B. Gonzalez, District Judge, Family Court Division Hadley T. James Kainen Law Group, PLLC Eighth District Court Clerk

2To the extent that appellant's arguments are not addressed in this order, we conclude that they lack merit.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 ICI) 1947A 4291R11114