Williams v. Williams
| Decision Date | 19 August 2022 |
| Docket Number | 83263-COA |
| Parties | HERMAN GEORGE WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. NADINE ALECIA WILLIAMS, Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Court of Appeals |
Law Offices of F. Peter James, Esq.
The Law Offices of Frank J. Toti, Esq.
Herman George Williams appeals from a decree of divorce. Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Court Division, Clark County Soonhee Bailey, Judge.
Herman and Nadine Alecia Williams married in 2004.[1] They have four children, three boys and one girl. The three boys are currently 9, 12, and almost 14 years of age. The girl, A.W is the oldest, and she will turn 18 years old in October 2022. During the marriage, Nadine took out student loans and earned a master's degree in nursing; she now works as a nurse. Herman works for Copart as a tow truck driver, earning a fee for each completed tow.
The relevant tensions began in 2018. On one occasion, Nadine physically disciplined A.W. by hitting her with a piece of PVC pipe. This caused a scar on A. W.'s head. This incident gave rise to a CPS investigation, but that case was closed based on the understanding that the children would be in Herman's care. On another occasion, Nadine committed an act of domestic violence on her mother, Phyllis Gayle. In March 2019, Herman took the children and left the marital residence. After the separation, Gayle moved in with Herman, paying him $700 per month in rent. Soon thereafter, Nadine filed a complaint for divorce. ! Before trial, the district court gave Herman temporary physical
I custody, and Nadine received weekend parenting time that gradually increased. In the early stages, all four children preferred to live with Herman. As time progressed, however A.W. changed her preference and preferred to live with Nadine. At one point, A.W. even ran away from Herman to be with Nadine. Despite the temporary custody orders providing otherwise, A.W. remained with Nadine by her own choice. Herman's last exercise of parenting time with A.W. took place in January 2020. The children's evolving relationship with both parents was captured by Family Mediation Center (FMC) interviews. While the children indicated a preference for Herman immediately after Herman and Nadine separated, their ratings of Nadine improved as time went on. Reportedly, Nadine ceased using corporal punishment after she was admonished by the district court early in the proceedings. Specifically, the boys later indicated a favorable opinion of both Nadine and Herman. However, A.W. expressed both an improved relationship with Nadine and a worsened relationship with Herman. All the while, both parties frustrated each other's efforts to establish or maintain a relationship with the children.
Eventually, the parties retained counsel and went to trial in February 2021. At trial, the parties stipulated to the admission of most exhibits, including bank records and medical bills. Nadine testified first. She expressed a willingness to cooperate with Herman to meet the children's best interests. She also testified to her income, and that she believed that Herman did not deserve any alimony. Nadine requested primary physical custody of all four children because she believed she was the better parent.
Herman testified next. During his testimony, he expressed an interest in reforming his relationship with A.W., but he agreed that Nadine could receive primary physical custody of A.W. because he had gone so long without spending time with their oldest child. He mainly desired primary physical custody of the parties' three boys. In addition, he offered testimony on his income and asked for $1,000 per month in alimony from Nadine because, according to Herman, she made more money than he did. Herman made no mention of a possible division of Nadine's master's degree at trial.
Phyllis Gayle also testified at trial to her observations of the family before the separation. She spoke mainly of the incidents of domestic violence committed by Nadine.
After trial, the district court considered the parties' testimonies and the admitted exhibits. On the issue of child custody, the court imposed the presumption against Nadine based on the acts of domestic violence she committed. It concluded, however, that she rebutted the presumption because she stopped using corporal punishment with the children after the court ordered its cessation and the children all noted an improved relationship with Nadine. With respect to A.W., the court acknowledged her low ratings of Herman and her preference for Nadine. Nevertheless, the district court was "persuaded by the positive relationship described by the children," and ordered joint physical custody of all four children.
After custody, the district court considered alimony. It did not find either party credible on the issue of income. As a result, the court calculated each party's income by reviewing the admitted bank records and pay information. Herman provided just eight months of America First bank records that showed his deposits from Copart, the tow company, as well as transactions and transfers he made between both his savings account and his checking account. At the bottom of each statement, the document showed a "total deposits" figure that included the sum of both Copart's payments to Herman and his deposit transfers from his savings account to his checking account.
The district court mentioned these America First records before concluding that Herman's income over those eight months totaled $73,322. The court calculated Herman's annual income at $114,566. It then added Gayle's $700 per month rent, concluding his monthly income totaled $10,247. This figure put Herman over $120,000 in annual income. It calculated Nadine's income as well, arriving at an annual income of $145,583. The district court then considered each party's monthly expenses. In the end, the court refused Herman's request to award alimony because it concluded "the disparity of income between the parties [was] negligible," and Herman enjoyed the "superior financial position on a monthly basis."
Finally, the district court addressed the parties' debts. Relevant here are the two largest debts held by Herman and Nadine. Herman has unpaid medical bills totaling just over $75,000. Nadine has student debt for just over $76,000. The court identified both debts as community debt and used them to offset each other, assigning Herman the responsibility of paying his medical bills and Nadine the responsibility of the student loans. From there, the district court divided and awarded various other assets; it made no mention of Nadine's master's degree.
Herman filed a motion for reconsideration, or alternatively, a motion for a new trial. He challenged the district court's calculation of his income, the custody determination on the three boys, and the court's failure to divide the value of Nadine's master's degree after classifying her student loans a community debt. The district court denied the motion and Herman appealed both the original order and the order denying reconsideration here.
On appeal, Herman argues that the district court erred in its income calculation and its custody determination. Herman concedes that he is not requesting primary custody of A.W., and therefore we only consider the physical custodial order for the three boys.[2] He also argues the district court erred by dividing Nadine's student loans as community debt without dividing her master's degree itself. He further argues that alimony was improperly denied because the district court miscalculated his income.
Finally, he argues this court should reexamine the district court's credibility determinations. We address each point in turn.
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it awarded joint physical custody of the three boys
First, we address the district court's custody determination with respect to the boys. Herman argues that the court erred in concluding that Nadine rebutted the domestic violence presumption, and therefore, he should be awarded primary physical custody. In general, he also argues he is the more capable parent, and asserts Nadine failed to comply with court orders. Nadine recites the district court's custody analysis, arguing the court did not abuse its discretion. We agree with Nadine.
District courts enjoy "broad discretion in making child custody determinations, and we will not disturb the district court's custody determination absent a clear abuse of discretion." Rico v. Rodriguez, 121 Nev. 695, 701, 120 P.3d 812, 816 (2005) (internal quotes omitted). In cases involving domestic violence, there is a rebuttable presumption against the perpetrator parent receiving even joint physical custody. See NRS 125C.0035(4)(k), (5). Ultimately, "the sole consideration of the court is the best interest of the child." NRS 125C.0035(1). The district court's order must tie the child's best interests to its decision and provide a factual basis for its custody determination. Davis v. Ewalefo, 131 Nev. 445, 452, 352 P.3d 1139, 1143(2015).
Here we begin from the district court's application of the domestic violence presumption against Nadine. The district court correctly applied this presumption based upon its findings considering the testimony it received regarding Nadine's acts of violence towards A.W. and Gayle. We conclude, however, the district court was within its discretion to find Nadine rebutted that presumption. The court emphasized Nadine's compliance with court orders against using corporal punishment and the children's increased ratings of and positive feelings toward Nadine expressed during the FMC interviews. These considerations, and the fact that Gayle and Nadine no longer associated,...
To continue reading
Request your trial