Kajioka v. Kajioka, 062218 NVCA, 72888

Docket Nº:72888
Opinion Judge:SILVER C.J.
Party Name:RENE N. KAJIOKA, Appellant, v. DEAN Y. KAJIOKA, Respondent.
Judge Panel:Tao, J. Gibbons, J. Hon. Cynthia Dianne Steel, District Judge, Family Court Division Carolyn Worrell, Settlement Judge
Case Date:June 22, 2018
Court:Court of Appeals of Nevada
 
FREE EXCERPT

RENE N. KAJIOKA, Appellant,

v.

DEAN Y. KAJIOKA, Respondent.

No. 72888

Court of Appeals of Nevada

June 22, 2018

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

SILVER C.J.

Rene N. Kajioka appeals from a post-divorce decree order regarding attorney fees. Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Court Division, Clark County; Cynthia Dianne Steel, Judge.

Rene and her former spouse, Dean Kajioka, filed for divorce in late 2012.1 They stipulated to the terms of their divorce, except for the issue of attorney fees and costs. They included a provision in their decree that they would attempt to resolve the issue of attorney fees and costs without court intervention, but should that fail, "Rene's claim for attorney fees shall rest with the sound discretion of the Court."

The decree of divorce was filed on April 24, 2014. Rene served the notice of entry of the decree electronically that same day. On May 16, 2014, Rene filed a motion for attorney fees. The district court awarded her fees and costs.

Dean appealed that award and this court was assigned Dean's appeal. We reversed and remanded the matter to the district court because we concluded the district court had abused its discretion in awarding Rene fees without conducting a proper evaluation of the factors described in Brunzell2 or considering the disparity in incomes of the parties under Wright[3] On remand, we instructed the district court to address, as a preliminary matter, whether it had "granted the parties an extension to file a motion for [attorney] fees, and if satisfied the motion was timely," to determine whether an appropriate basis to award such fees existed.

On remand, Rene filed a motion to adjudicate the attorney fees issue. There, she argued that her original motion for fees was timely under the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure and, even if it was not, she and Dean had stipulated to extend the deadline to file the motion.

The district court denied Rene's motion to adjudicate. In so doing, it made a number of findings. First, it found that "there was no stipulation requested by the parties or acknowledged by Court Order to extend the time to file the Motion for Attorney Fees." Second, it found that "there was neither express written language nor any intent by the court to extend the deadline to file for attorney fee relief." Third, it found that "had [it] reviewed [NRCP 54(d)(2)(B)] at the time of the [hearing on Rene's original motion] for attorney fees, the Court would have found no jurisdiction to entertain the motion [because] [t]he rule is clear; the Court cannot extend the time to file for attorney fee relief once the time has expired." Finally, it found that the "time to file the post-Decree motion to resolve attorney fee issues fell on or about May 14, 2014," such that it did not have the authority to extend the time to file a motion for attorney fees when Rene filed her original motion.

Now, Rene...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP