appeals from district court orders in a child support
arrearages matter. Eighth Judicial District Court, Family
Court Division, Clark County; Cheryl B. Moss, Judge.
Scotlund Vaile, Wamego, Kansas, in Pro Se.
Willick Law Group and Marshal S. Willick, Las Vegas, for
THE COURT EN BANC.
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.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
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
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
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.
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."
the Nevada child support order controls
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. ...