Cosner v. Cosner
| Decision Date | 09 May 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 4435,4435 |
| Citation | 78 Nev. 242,371 P.2d 278 |
| Parties | Inez I. COSNER, Appellant, v. Byrle L. COSNER, Jr., Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Cantwell, Loomis & Murphy, Stanley H. Brown, Reno, for appellant.
Bruce D. Roberts, Reno, for respondent.
This is a divorce action commenced by the husband (respondent) which was referred to a master on stipulation of counsel. 1 The complaint alleges extreme cruelty as the ground for divorce and requests custody of the two minor girls who, at the time of the decree, were 12 and 10 years of age. Appellant's answer denies the allegation of cruelty and asks that custody of the children be awarded to her. After hearing the evidence the master made and filed his report, recommending that a divorce be granted respondent and the custody of the children be awarded to appellant. Formal findings and conclusions to this effect were presented to the lower court with such recommendations, but no transcript of the testimony was made or presented. Objections to the report were made by respondent and the lower court sustained such objections in so far as full custody was given to the appellant wife. The court then, after finding that both parties were fit and proper persons to have custody of the minor children (which was in accord with the master's report), awarded the custody of the children to respondent during the school months and to appellant during the summer vacation months of each year, and provided for alternate custody on certain holidays. Appellant has appealed from this portion of the decree relating to custody. She assigns as error the refusal of the lower court to adopt the report of the master without modification, and of its modification of the findings of fact, conclusion of law, and decree as proposed by the master, which modification provides for divided custody of the children.
It must be determined therefore what effect a trial court must give to the report of a master appointed pursuant to NRCP 53.
The master's report contained the substance of the proceedings and evidence and recites that the younger child favored staying with her father; that the older child is mentally retarded but she indicated that she was very found of both her father and mother; that when the parties separated in June 1960, the father took both children with him to Nevada and that the wife did not know the whereabouts of the children until the divorce action was commenced. There was evidence that during the time the husband had cared for the children in Nevada his treatment of them was excellent and he had placed the older child in a special school for handicapped children. The husband testified that the wife had on occasion mistreated the children and there was evidence from which it could be inferred that the husband did likewise, but this evidence can be disregarded in view of the finding that both parties were fit and proper persons to have custody of the children and that both parties appeared to be devoted parents. The wife planned to establish and operate a home for elderly women and thereby be with the children as much as possible. The husband testified that he believed him unmarried sister could be with the children while he was at work. The master believed that the preference of the younger child, born December 22, 1950, to remain with her father was primarily due to her being separated from her mother for a long period of time. 'Under such circumstances,' the report continues, 'the writer feels forced to conclude that all things considered it is for the best interests of the two minor children to be in the custody of their mother.'
Despite these findings and conclusions the trial court determined that the divided custody, as aforesaid, was for the best...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harrison v. Harrison
...constituted judge, and that power may not be delegated to a master or other subordinate official of the court.” Cosner v. Cosner, 78 Nev. 242, 245, 371 P.2d 278, 279 (1962).This court recently addressed a master's role in In re A.B., 128 Nev. 764, 291 P.3d 122 (2012). In In re A.B., the juv......
-
Tahja L. v. State (In re L.S.)
...delegated to a master or other subordinate official of the court," A.B., 128 Nev. at 770, 291 P.3d at 127 (quoting Cosner v. Cosner, 78 Nev. 242, 245, 371 P.2d 278, 279 (1962) ), the provisions discussed above avoid any such infirmity in this process: "[A]lthough a master has the authority ......
-
Noble v. Noble
...disturbed on appeal unless there is a clear case of abuse. Fenkell v. Fenkell (filed May 21, 1970), Nev. 469 P.2d 701; Cosner v. Cosner, 78 Nev. 242, 371 P.2d 278 (1962); Timney v. Timney, 76 Nev. 230, 351 P.2d 611 (1960); Black v. Black, 48 Nev. 220, 228 P. 889 (1924). Here there are no fi......
-
Reel v. Harrison
...212 (1979). 17. 107 Nev. 378, 812 P.2d 1268. 18. See Adams v. Adams, 86 Nev. 62, 64, 464 P.2d 458, 459 (1970) (citing Cosner v. Cosner, 78 Nev. 242, 371 P.2d 278 (1962); Timney v. Timney, 76 Nev. 230, 351 P.2d 611 (1960); Black v. Black, 48 Nev. 220, 228 P. 889 (1924)). 19. Schwartz, 107 Ne......