Reed v. Reed

Decision Date12 May 2022
Docket Number83354
PartiesAMANDA REED, Appellant, v. DEVIN REED, Respondent.
CourtNevada Supreme Court

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

ORDER OF REVERSAL AND REMAND

This is an appeal from a district court order denying a motion to modify child custody. Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Court Division, Clark County; Michele Mercer, Judge.

Appellant Amanda Reed and respondent Devin Reed are the parents of two minor children. In 2018, before their divorce, they entered a judicially approved agreement to share joint legal and physical custody of the children. Amanda later filed a motion to modify custody. In 2019, the parties stipulated to participate in a settlement conference "to negotiate the remaining financial issues" and prepare a divorce decree. The parties also stipulated that they would adhere to the 2018 custodial arrangement hut potentially revisit the issue based on the results of a pending custody evaluation. At the settlement conference, the parties resolved all the issues in the divorce proceedings with the caveat that Amanda had a pending motion to modify child custody and those proceedings would continue, unaffected by the settlement agreement. Despite this stipulation, the divorce decree approved by the district court expressly awarded the parties joint legal and physical custody of the children. But the decree also stated that w[t]he parties acknowledge that there is currently a request[ ] pending by [Amanda] to modify custody. Nothing in this Decree shall act as a waiver of [Amanda's] right to pursue said request."

Two days after entry of the divorce decree Amanda filed a motion to adopt the recommendations of the completed custody evaluation and to modify custody. Amanda supported her motion with allegations that predated the divorce decree, including claims that Devin engaged in acts of domestic violence. Devin opposed the motion and filed a supplement requesting that he be awarded primary custody of the children, making allegations related to Amanda's use of prescription drugs that predated the divorce decree. The district court set the matter for an evidentiary hearing before the case was transferred to another family court department. At the hearing, the newly assigned judge did not receive any evidence after finding that the decree was a final order and res judicata precluded the presentation of evidence that predated the decree. The district court denied the requests to modify the parties' joint custody arrangement but adjusted the custodial schedule.

On appeal, Amanda asserts that the decree was not a final order as to child custody because the clause discussing her pending motion to modify custody acts as a "savings" provision that reserved the issue for further litigation. See Rennels v. Rennels, 127 Nev. 564, 569, 257 P.3d 396, 399 (2011) (explaining that a final order "leaves nothing for the future consideration of the court"). Conversely, Devin contends that the clause only acknowledges that the divorce decree did not prohibit Amanda from pursuing a custody modification in the future as child custody may be modified at any time. See NRS 125C.0045(1). Because both interpretations are reasonable, the district court properly found the language ambiguous. See Shelton v Shelton, 119 Nev. 492, 497, 78 P.3d 507, 510 (2003) (recognizing that a contract susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation is ambiguous).

While contract interpretation, including interpreting a stipulated divorce decree, generally presents a question of law reviewed de novo when facts are not in dispute, Henson v Henson, 130 Nev. 814, 818, 334 P.3d 933, 936 (2014), the contract here is ambiguous. "The best approach for interpreting an ambiguous contract is to delve beyond its express terms and examine the circumstances surrounding the parties' agreement in order to determine the true mutual intentions of the parties." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Such an "examination includes not only the circumstances surrounding the contract's execution, but also subsequent acts and declarations of the parties." Id.

Despite the award of joint custody in the divorce decree, the ambiguity calls into question whether the parties intended the decree to be the final custody agreement and the district court's conclusion that the decree had preclusive effect. See Rennels, 127 Nev. at 569, 257 P.3d at 399 (explaining that this court will give preclusive effect to custody "agreements if they are deemed final"). The record provides some support for Amanda's position including the stipulation that the settlement proceedings would not affect the custody issue until the district court addressed it; Devin's own post-decree request to modify custody based, in part, on pre-decree allegations; and the district court's finding (before the case was transferred to another department) that both the parties raised allegations sufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing on the issue. See Rooney v. Rooney, 109 Nev. 540, 542, 853 P.2d 123, 124 (1993) (concluding that district courts have...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT