Ferguson v. Krepper
| Decision Date | 27 October 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 5299,5299 |
| Citation | 432 P.2d 668,83 Nev. 408 |
| Parties | Jane Ann FERGUSON, Appellant, v. Carl Phillip KREPPER, Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Galane & Wines, Las Vegas, for appellant.
Babcock & Sutton, Las Vegas, for respondent.
Appellant Jane Ann Ferguson seeks to reverse an order entered in a habeas corpus proceeding which gave full faith and credit to an earlier Oklahoma order transferring custody of the parties' minor daughters from appellant to respondent.
On September 21, 1962, an Oklahoma court granted Jane Ann Krepper (now Ferguson) a divorce from her husband, Carl Phillip Krepper, and custody of her two minor daughters, Marie Ann, age 4 years, and Michelle Ann, age 1 1/2 years.
In August 1965, appellant, with the children, moved to Nevada where she established and still maintains a permanent residence.
Shortly thereafter respondent moved to Texas where he resided for a brief period and then to Arizona where he established and presently maintains his residence.
On June 29, 1966, respondent filed in the original divorce proceeding in Oklahoma a Motion to Modify the Divorce Decree, seeking 'the temporary custody of the children from the 27th or 28th of July 1966 until the last week of August 1966 and for further visiting privileges during Christmas vacations and summer months.'
The hearing on the motion was set for July 22, 1966. Appellant was given notice of the hearing by mail directed to her Nevada address and she appeared through Oklahoma counsel, Messrs. Garrett and Pierson, although she personally did not attend the hearing.
The Oklahoma court filed its order on July 29, 1966, providing that, 'Order heretofore entered in this cause be modified insofar as it pertains to the rights of the defendant (respondent herein) to visit his minor children and the defendant is granted visiting privileges each weekend, commencing July 23, 1966, from 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. of the following Sunday, and each Wednesday thereafter from 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m.' The Oklahoma order then concluded:
The Oklahoma court did, on October 14, 1966, order the hearing on defendant's motion for visiting privileges set for 10:00 a.m., November 4, 1966. Appellant's counsel was given notice of the hearing but failed to appear. The hearing was continued without further notice for 3 days until November 7, 1966.
Neither appellant nor her counsel was present for the November 7 hearing. Nevertheless, the Oklahoma court proceeded to hear the matter on November 7, and at the conclusion of the hearing entered its order transferring total custody of the two minor daughters to respondent and ordering appellant in Nevada to deliver the children to respondent and providing further: 'That he (respondent herein) be permitted to and (is) authorized by order of this court to remove said children to Phoenix, Arizona, where he is now residing.'
The Oklahoma record is completely void of any showing that there had been a change of circumstances which would sustain a finding that such a custodial change was in the best interest of the children.
Respondent then proceeded to Nevada where he sought to enforce his custodial rights as set forth in the Oklahoma order of November 7, by a habeas corpus proceeding filed December 9, 1966, in Nevada.
The hearing on the habeas corpus proceeding occurred on December 20, 1966. Both parties, the children, and counsel were present.
The sole evidence received was an exemplified copy of the Oklahoma order of November 7, 1966. The court below granted respondent's petition and ordered the minor daughters forthwith delivered to respondent for removal to Arizona. The lower court was of the opinion that Nevada was bound to give full faith and credit to the Oklahoma order.
For the reasons hereinafter set forth we hold that Nevada was not bound to give full faith and credit to the Oklahoma order and further that the Nevada court was not precluded from hearing the issue of custody.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McGlone v. McGlone
...state, or, at the very least, honored on the principle of comity (Lyerla v. Ramsay, 82 Nev. 250, 415 P.2d 623 (1966); Ferguson v. Krepper, 83 Nev. 408, 432 P.2d 668 (1967)) since changed conditions affecting the welfare of the children were not shown to have occurred after entry of the Loui......
-
Dean v. Kimbrough
...in the past from child custody habeas corpus proceedings. McGlone v. McGlone, 86 Nev. 14 18, 464 P.2d 27 (1970); Ferguson v. Krepper, 83 Nev. 408, 432 P.2d 668 (1967); Welfare Division v. Maynard, 84 Nev. 525, 445 P.2d 153 (1968); In the Matter of Schultz, 64 Nev. 264, 181 P.2d 585 (1947); ......
-
Murphy v. Murphy
...the parents have been materially altered; and (2) the child's welfare would be substantially enhanced by the change. Ferguson v. Krepper, 83 Nev. 408, 432 P.2d 668 (1967); Lyerla v. Ramsay, 82 Nev. 250, 415 P.2d 623 (1966); Sisson v. Sisson, 77 Nev. 478, 367 P.2d 98 (1961); Osmun v. Osmun, ......
-
Norris v. Graville
...1 The judgment of the trial court is accordingly affirmed. 1 Appellant's suggestion that the case is analogous to Ferguson v. Krepper, 83 Nev. 408, 432 P.2d 668 (1967), in which we reversed the granting of a habeas petition by a lower court, based solely upon a foreign decree, is belied by ......