Burton v. Burton
Citation | 669 P.2d 703,99 Nev. 698 |
Decision Date | 27 September 1983 |
Docket Number | No. 14836,14836 |
Parties | Phyllis BURTON, Appellant, v. Jimmie H. BURTON, Respondent. |
Court | Supreme Court of Nevada |
Robert C. LePome, Las Vegas, for appellant.
Joan D. Buckley, Las Vegas, for respondent.
This appeal is taken from a district court order that denied appellant's motion to modify a decree of divorce. Appellant has now filed a motion to remand the matter to the district court on the ground that motions to modify were expressly authorized by the Nevada Legislature after the district court denied appellant's motion below. The motion to remand is unopposed.
Appellant was divorced from respondent on June 18, 1982. The decree contained a property division that, inter alia, "confirmed" respondent's military retirement benefits to be "his sole and separate property." Such a property allocation was proper under McCarty v. McCarty, 453 U.S. 210, 101 S.Ct. 2728, 69 L.Ed.2d 589 (1981) ( ).
Subsequent to the parties' divorce, Congress effectively reversed the policy established in McCarty by enacting the Uniformed Services Spousal Protection Act, 10 U.S.C. § 1408 (1982), under which state courts are permitted to divide benefits such as those at issue here in accordance with state law.
Shortly after the federal statute became effective, appellant filed a motion to modify the divorce decree. The motion was denied on March 10, 1983, and appellant filed a notice of appeal on March 28, 1983.
The Nevada Legislature enacted a law, effective May 15, 1983, that allows former military spouses who obtained divorces between June 26, 1981, and January 31, 1983, to "request a modification in the district court of the adjudication of property rights in the decree of divorce to determine the spouse's rights to support or to a military pension." 1983 Nev.Stats. ch. 301, § 1, at 740. Appellant filed the motion to remand, based upon the new law, on June 6, 1983.
Before turning to the merits of the motion to remand, we are obliged to address the question of whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from an order denying a motion to modify a divorce decree.
NRAP 3A(b) designates the judgments and orders from which appeals may be taken in civil cases, and where no authority to appeal is granted, no right exists. Kokkos v. Tsalikis, 91 Nev. 24, 530 P.2d 756 (1975); Alper v. Posin, 77 Nev. 328, 363 P.2d 502 (1961). NRAP 3A(b) provides, in part, that an appeal may be taken "from any special order made after final judgment, except an order ... pursuant to NRCP 60(b)(1)."
This court has previously held that not all post-judgment orders are appealable. Rather a post-judgment order "must affect the rights of the parties growing out of final judgment" in order to be appealable as a "special order made after final judgment." See Wilkinson v. Wilkinson, 73 Nev. 143, 311 P.2d 735 (1957); Tardy et al. v. Tarbell et al., 54 Nev. 342, 16 P.2d 656 (1932). In other words, the later order would be appealable if such rights were found to be "affected." Under this analysis it is arguable that because an order refusing to modify a judgment does not change any rights arising out of the judgment, such an order is not appealable.
A different analysis, however, should be required in the context of an order denying a motion to amend a divorce decree, where the motion is based upon changed factual or legal circumstances and the moving party is not attacking the original judgment. Such a motion is generally based upon some change in fact or law which occurred after the judgment was granted, and in light of which the moving party claims that the judgment is no longer just. In this context, the denial of a motion for modification serves as the only adjudication of the facts and law at issue in the motion and should be appealable as a special order made after final judgment. See Brooks v. Abbott, 251 Cal.App.2d 812, 59 Cal.Rptr. 911 (1967) ( ). See also Raff v. Raff, 61 Cal.2d 514, 39 Cal.Rptr. 366, 393 P.2d 678 (1964) ( ); Carrow v. Carrow, 294 S.W.2d 595 (Mo.App.1956) ( ).
The analysis above is in keeping with this court's practice of reviewing the merits of orders denying motions to modify divorce decrees. See, e.g., Walport v....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Marriage of Gallo, In re
...In re Marriage of Kecskes, 683 P.2d 478 (Mont.1984); Taylor v. Taylor, 217 Neb. 409, 348 N.W.2d 887 (1984); Burton v. Burton, 99 Nev. 698, 669 P.2d 703 (1983); Castiglioni v. Castiglioni, 192 N.J.Super. 594, 471 A.2d 809 (1984); Walentowski v. Walentowski, 100 N.M. 484, 672 P.2d 657 (1983);......
-
Foster v. Dingwall
...(order denying NRCP 60(b) relief is appealable); NRAP 3A(b)(2) (order denying a motion for a new trial is appealable); Burton v. Burton, 99 Nev. 698, 669 P.2d 703 (1983) (order denying a motion to modify a family court order, when the motion is based on changed factual or legal circumstance......
-
Friedman v. Friedman
...multiple appeals arising from the same action. Id. Divorce decrees are generally final judgments. See Burton v. Burton, 99 Nev. 698, 700–01, 669 P.2d 703, 704–05 (1983) ; Elsman v. Elsman, 54 Nev. 20, 26, 2 P.2d 139, (1931) (“[The final determination of an action at law was called a judgmen......
-
Hern v. Erhardt
...598 (1967). However, this court has jurisdiction to review the order of the district court pursuant to NRAP 3A(b). See Burton v. Burton, 99 Nev. 698, 669 P.2d 703 (1983) (special order after final judgment).5 After Julie filed her opening brief on appeal, this court ordered that Elliott sho......
-
§ 12.03 Military Longevity and Disability Retirement
...v. Koppenhaver, 678 P.2d 1180 (N.M. App. 1984); Walentowski v. Walentowski, 672 P.2d 657 (N.M. 1983). Nevada: Burton v. Burton, 669 P.2d 703 (Nev. 1983). But see, the more recent statute, which is summarized in N. 167 infra. Oregon: In re Marriage of Valley, 775 P.2d 332 (Ore. App. 1989). P......