Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Vaile v. Vaile

Supreme Court of Nevada

June 22, 2017

ROBERT SCOTLUND VAILE, Appellant,
v.
CISILIE A. VAILE, N/K/A CISILIE A. PORSBOLL, Respondent. ROBERT SCOTLUND VAILE, Appellant,
v.
CISILIE A. VAILE, N/K/A CISILIE A. PORSBOLL, Respondent.

         Consolidated appeals from district court orders in a child support arrearages matter. Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Court Division, Clark County; Cheryl B. Moss, Judge.

          Robert Scotlund Vaile, Wamego, Kansas, in Pro Se.

          Willick Law Group and Marshal S. Willick, Las Vegas, for Respondent.

         BEFORE THE COURT EN BANC.

          OPINION

          DOUGLAS, J.

         In this appeal, we are asked to consider: (1) whether a Nevada child support order controlled over a Norway order, and (2) whether this court lacks jurisdiction over appellant's challenges to contempt findings. We conclude that pursuant to NRS 130.207, the Nevada child support order controls. We further conclude that this court has jurisdiction over the challenges to contempt findings and sanctions in the order appealed from in Docket No. 61415, but we need not consider them because appellant has failed to assert cogent arguments or provide relevant authority in support of his claims. Thus, we affirm the judgments of the district court.

         FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         This appeal involves a complex factual background that culminated in a divorce decree entered by a Nevada district court and a dispute over custody of the parties' children. This court first encountered this case in 2000 and resolved the matter in 2002. See Vaile v. Eighth Judicial Dist Court (Vaile I), 118 Nev. 262, 44 P.3d 506 (2002). Appellant Robert Scotlund Vaile and respondent Cisilie Porsboll were married in Utah in 1990 and filed for divorce in Nevada in 1998. Id. at 266-67, 44 F.3d at 509-10. Vaile is a citizen of the United States, while Porsboll is a citizen of Norway. Id. at 266, 44 P.3d at 509. Their children habitually resided in Norway. Id. at 277, 44 P.3d at 516.

         We encountered the case again in 2009 and resolved the matter in 2012. See Vaile v. Porsboll (Vaile II), 128 Nev. 27, 268 P.3d 1272 (2012), Following their divorce, the district court entered an order imposing statutory penalties against Vaile due to child support arrearages. Id., at 29, 268 P.3d at 1273. "[W]e address[ed] the district court's authority to enforce or modify a child support order that a Nevada district court initially entered, " even though "neither the parties nor the children reside[d] in Nevada." Id. at 28, 268 P.3d at 1273. Ultimately, we reversed the district court's order and remanded the matter, holding that: (1) the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to modify the child support obligation pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), and (2) setting the support obligation at a fixed amount constituted a modification of the support obligation. Id., at 33-34, 268 P.3d at 1276-77. However, we noted that because no other jurisdiction had entered an order regarding child support, the order from Nevada controlled. Id. at 31, 268 P.3d at 1275. In a footnote, we stated that because the parties alluded to a Norway child support order, "on remand, the district court must determine whether such an order exists and assess its bearing, if any, on the district court's enforcement of the Nevada support order." Id. at 31 n.4, 268 P.3d at 1275 n.4. On remand, the district court determined that Norway entered a child support order; however, the court concluded that the Nevada support order controlled because Norway lacked jurisdiction to modify the Nevada order.

         These consolidated appeals followed. In Docket No. 61415, Vaile challenges a district court order awarding Porsboll child support arrearages and penalties and reducing them to judgment, as well as finding him in contempt of court. In Docket No. 62797, Vaile challenges an order finding him in default for failure to appear, sanctioning him for violating court orders, and finding him in further contempt of court for failing to pay child support.

         On appeal, the court of appeals issued an order, in pertinent part, concluding that Nevada's child support order controlled over Norway's order. See Vaile v. Vaile, Docket Nos. 61415 & 62797 (Order Affirming in Part, Dismissing in Part, Reversing in Part, and Remanding, Bee. 29, 2015). The court further concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Vaile's challenges to his contempt findings. Id. On rehearing, the court of appeals clarified its previous order but still affirmed its conclusions that Norway lacked jurisdiction to modify the Nevada decree and the Nevada decree was the controlling child support order. See Vaile v. Vaile, Docket Nos. 61415 & 62797 (Order Granting Rehearing in Part, Denying Rehearing in Part, and Affirming, Apr, 14, 2016). Thereafter, Vaile filed a petition for review, which this court granted. See Vaile v. Vaile, Docket Nos. 61415 & 62797 (Order Granting Petition for Review, Sept. 22, 2016). This court determined that two issues in the petition warrant review: (1) "whether the Nevada child support order controlled under the appropriate [UIFSA] statute, " and (2) "whether the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to consider [Vaile's] challenges to the district court's contempt findings and sanctions." Id.[1]

         DISCUSSION

         Whether the Nevada child support order controls

         The parties dispute whether the Nevada or Norway child support order controls in this case. According to Vaile, the Norway child support order controls pursuant to NRS 130.207. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.