Grey v. Grey, 26076
| Decision Date | 30 March 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 26076,26076 |
| Citation | 892 P.2d 595,111 Nev. 388 |
| Parties | Roxanne GREY, Appellant, v. Louis GREY, Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
This appeal is occasioned solely by the filing practices of the Clerk of the Eighth Judicial District Court. Once again, a litigant has fallen victim to the faulty internal procedures of that office.
This action commenced on June 20, 1994, when respondent Louis Grey filed in the Eighth Judicial District Court a complaint for divorce from appellant Roxanne Grey. Louis also sought custody of the parties' minor children.
Roxanne sought a change of venue to the First Judicial District Court in Carson City. Her demand for a change of venue, motion for a change of venue, points and authorities, affidavit and notice of motion (collectively, the "venue documents") were dated July 21, 1994. The venue documents were not stamped "Filed" by the clerk of the district court, however, until August 1, 1994.
After conducting a hearing at which the district judge examined clerk's office personnel regarding their office procedures, the district judge orally denied the change of venue. Thereafter, Roxanne's attorney submitted a notarized affidavit in which she stated that she mailed the venue documents on July 22, 1994, and that on July 25, 1994, she spoke with the clerk's office employee in charge of the Family Court master calendar, who stated that she had received the venue documents but that she would have to transfer them to the legal department for processing and that they would be filed either that day or the next day. The record also contains a signed return receipt dated July 27, 1994, indicating receipt of the venue documents mailed to Louis.
On September 1, 1994, the district court issued a written order denying the demand and motion for a change of venue on the ground that it was not timely filed. This timely appeal followed.
Roxanne contends that the district court erred in denying her demand and motion for a change of venue on the ground that it was not timely filed. We agree.
Roxanne based her demand and motion for a change of venue on NRS 13.040, which states, in relevant part: "In all other cases [not governed by specific statute], the action shall be tried in the county in which the defendants ... may reside at the commencement of the action...." To obtain a change of venue as a matter of right, the demand must be timely filed. Kenning Car Rental v. Desert Rent-A-Car, 105 Nev. 118, 771 P.2d 150 (1989); Hood v. Kirby, 99 Nev. 386, 663 P.2d 348 (1983). The time for filing a demand for a change of venue as a matter of right is governed by NRS 13.050(1), which requires that the demand be filed "before the time for answering expires." The time for filing an answer is "within 20 days after the service of the summons and complaint." NRCP 12(a).
The parties agree that Roxanne was served on July 7, 1994. Thus, her demand for a change of venue was due July 27, 1994. The problem in this case is that Roxanne claims to have mailed the venue documents sufficiently far in advance such that they should have been received by the clerk's office in a timely fashion, yet they were not actually filed until August 1, 1994, three days past the deadline. Roxanne's claim is supported by a notarized affidavit of mailing indicating that the venue documents were mailed to Louis on July 22, 1994, and by a transmittal letter to the clerk of the court dated July 22, 1994, which was submitted with the venue documents. The clerk's office did not stamp the documents...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sullivan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court In and For County of Clark
...of the district court has a duty to file documents and to keep an accurate record of the proceedings before the court); Grey v. Grey, 111 Nev. 388, 892 P.2d 595 (1995) (clerk of district court admonished for failure to keep accurate record of documents submitted for Petitioner alleges that ......
-
Peke Resources, Inc. v. Fifth Judicial Dist. Court In and For County of Esmeralda
...record on appeal may not be considered by an appellate court and reference to such matters is improper. See Grey v. Grey, 111 Nev. 388, 390 n. 1, 892 P.2d 595, 597 n. 1 (1995); State, Emp. Sec. Dep't v. Weber, 100 Nev. 121, 123, 676 P.2d 1318, 1319 (1984).1 The majority mentions Equistar's ......
- Renown Reg'l Med. Ctr. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court of State
-
Jones v. Jones
...requirements set forth therein are met. Halama v. Halama, 97 Nev. 628, 629, 637 P.2d 1221, 1221 (1981); see also Grey v. Grey, 111 Nev. 388, 390, 892 P.2d 595, 597 (1995) (noting that if a defendant in a domestic relations matter resided at the commencement of the action "as she alleged in ......