Wagner v. Wagner, 110519 NVCA, 77368-COA

Docket Nº:77368-COA
Opinion Judge:GIBBONS C.J.
Party Name:TRICIA A. WAGNER, Appellant, v. DAVID N. WAGNER, Respondent.
Judge Panel:Tao J., Bulla, J. Hon. Gerald W. Hardcastle, Senior Judge
Case Date:November 05, 2019
Court:Court of Appeals of Nevada
 
FREE EXCERPT

TRICIA A. WAGNER, Appellant,

v.

DAVID N. WAGNER, Respondent.

No. 77368-COA

Court of Appeals of Nevada

November 5, 2019

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

GIBBONS C.J.

Tricia A. Wagner appeals from a district court order denying a motion for custody modification and to relocate the child to Utah, Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Gerald W. Hardcastle, Senior Judge.1

Tricia and respondent David N. Wagner were married and had one minor child. When they divorced they entered into a stipulated parenting agreement in which they shared legal and physical custody. Per the agreement, they each had the child 50 percent of the time and exchanged custody every Sunday. Subsequently, David requested that Tricia keep custody of the child for 100 days so that he could move out of his parents' home. Tricia agreed. Shortly thereafter, David notified Tricia he would like to resume the normal custody arrangement, exchanging every week, because he had found an apartment, but Tricia refused.

David subsequently moved to enforce the stipulated parenting agreement and Tricia filed a motion for primary physical custody and to relocate the child to Utah. At the hearing on the matter, the district court stated that it had read all of the paperwork that had been filed and then advised the parties that it intended to deny the motion to modify custody I and that the stipulated agreement would remain in place. Despite having requested an evidentiary hearing in her reply, Tricia failed to object to the district court reaching its decision without holding an evidentiary hearing or otherwise raise the issue of an evidentiary hearing at that time. Thereafter, the district court entered an order denying the motion to modify custody and to relocate the child and ordered the parties to resume the custody arrangement as set forth in the stipulated parenting agreement and resulting order. This appeal followed.

On appeal, Tricia argues that the district court should have held an evidentiary hearing on her request for primary physical custody and to relocate the child. This court reviews a district court's decision regarding child custody for an...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP