Cage v. Coppedge, 111519 NVCA, 76006-COA

Docket Nº:76006-COA
Opinion Judge:GIBBONS, C.J.
Party Name:KORI LOVETT CAGE, Appellant, v. MALIKA COPPEDGE, Respondent.
Judge Panel:Tao, J., Bulla, J. Hon. Rena G. Hughes, District Judge, Family Court Division
Case Date:November 15, 2019
Court:Court of Appeals of Nevada
 
FREE EXCERPT

KORI LOVETT CAGE, Appellant,

v.

MALIKA COPPEDGE, Respondent.

No. 76006-COA

Court of Appeals of Nevada

November 15, 2019

UNPUPUBLISHED OPINION

ORDER AFFIRMING IN PART, REVERSING IN PART AND REMANDING

GIBBONS, C.J.

Kori Lovett Cage appeals from a district court order modifying child custody. Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Court Division, Clark County; Rena G. Hughes, Judge.

Kori and respondent Mahka Coppedge were never married, but have two minor children in common. The parties participated in extensive proceedings regarding child custody and support, which eventually resulted in an order awarding them joint legal and physical custody of the children and requiring Malika to pay $600 per month in child support. Malika later moved to modify her support obligation, asserting that it should be eliminated because her employer was not paying her, she was recovering from injuries sustained in an automobile accident, and she was caring for her ill mother. Following a hearing, the district court ordered that Malika's support obligation be held in abeyance and directed the parties to file updated financial disclosure forms, directed Malika to file proof that she was disabled, and directed Kori to file an opposition to Malika's motion to modify support.

While Malika submitted the required documentation, Kori failed to do so by the next scheduled hearing, which prompted the district court to direct him to file his updated financial disclosure form and an opposition to Malika's motion to modify support within 10 days. In the interim, Malika filed a separate motion to modify custody in which she argued that she had de facto primary physical custody and that the arrangement was in the children's best interest. Kori later filed an untimely opposition to Malika's motions to modify support and custody and a financial disclosure form.

Because Kori's filings were untimely, the district court concluded that he waived any support from Malika from the filing of her motion to May 2017 when the court heard Malika's motions. With respect to custody, the district court considered the merits, awarded Malika temporary primary physical custody based on its summary conclusion that the arrangement was in the children's best interest, and directed Kori to pay child support based on the modification to the parties' custodial arrangement. The district court also scheduled an evidentiary hearing to further address the custody issue. After the evidentiary hearing, the district court found that Malika had de facto primary physical custody and that the arrangement was in the children's best interest, and as a result, the court removed the temporary status from the newly entered...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP