Kajioka v. Kajioka, 062218 NVCA, 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|
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
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.
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
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.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP