Masar v. Masar, 70491

• Decision Date: 17 April 2017
• Docket Number: No. 70491,70491
• Parties: MICHAEL MASAR, Appellant, v. KRISTIN MASAR, Respondent.
• Court: Nevada Court of Appeals

MICHAEL MASAR, Appellant, v. KRISTIN MASAR, Respondent.

No. 70491

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

April 17, 2017

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Appellant Michael Masar appeals from a district court order denying a motion to change venue. Second Judicial District Court, Family Court Division, Washoe County; Cynthia Lu, Judge.

On appeal, Michael argues that the district court was required to transfer the underlying action to Alameda County, California, because it was the proper venue insofar as the parties own real property located in Alameda County that will be addressed in the divorce proceeding. Although the division of real property may be involved, the underlying action is a divorce action, not an action "[f]or the recovery of real property, or an estate, or interest therein, or for the determination in any form of such right or interest, [or] for injuries to real property." NRS 13.010(2)(a). Thus, the district court properly looked to NRS 13.040 and found that venue was proper in respondent Kristin Masar's chosen venue of Washoe County because Michael does not reside in the state of Nevada. See NRS 13.040 (providing that "if none of the defendants reside in the State . . . the [action] may be tried in any county which the plaintiff may designate in the complaint").

And because Washoe County was the proper county, the mandatory provision requiring transfer "[i]f the county designated . . . in the complaint be not the proper county" was not implicated, NRS 13.050(1), and the cases cited by Michael for the proposition that the district court was required to transfer venue to the county where he resides were not applicable. See Stocks v. Stocks, 64 Nev. 431, 183 P.2d 617 (1947) (concluding that a transfer of venue was required under the mandatory provisions of the predecessor to NRS 13.050(1)); Duffill v. Bartlett, 53 Nev. 228, 297 P. 504 (1931) (same).

Finally, while the district court has discretion to change the venue of a proceeding under NRS 13.050(2), see Mountain View Recreation, Inc. v. Imperial Commercial Cooking Equip. Co., 129 Nev. 413, 418, 305 P.3d 881, 884 (2013) (recognizing the district court's "wide discretion" in deciding motions to transfer venue for forum non conveniens), Michael has not demonstrated that the court abused its discretion by denying the motion to transfer venue in this case. See id. at 419, 305 P.3d at 885 (explaining that "a plaintiff's selected forum choice may only be denied under exceptional circumstances strongly supporting another forum," and that "[a] motion for change of venue based on forum non conveniens must be supported by affidavits so that the district court...