IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
JARVIS G. JACKSON No. 63427
Appellant,
vs. FILED
MEGAN ELIZABETH HOAGLAND, JAN 0 7 2016
Respondent.
DEMAN
ORDER OF REVERSAL AND REMAND
This is an appeal from a district court order denying a motion
to set aside an order establishing child custody. Eighth Judicial District
Court, Clark County; Kenneth E. Pollock, Judge.
In 2010, appellant Jarvis Jackson filed a complaint to
establish paternity. Jackson stipulated to fathering J.J., a minor child not
joined in the proceedings. J.J.'s mother, respondent Megan Hoagland,
failed to respond to the complaint. The district court's resultant default
judgment found that Jackson was J.J.'s natural father. However, a
subsequent DNA test revealed that Jackson was not J.J.'s biological
father. On February 26, 2013, Jackson filed an NRCP 60(b) motion for
relief from judgment, seeking a finding of non-paternity. The district
court denied Jackson's motion, and he appealed.
On appeal, Jackson contends that J.J. was an indispensable
party whose joinder was required. 1 We agree. Pursuant to NRS
126.101(1) (2007):
1 .A party may raise issues of jurisdiction for the first time on appeal.
Provenzano v. Long, 64 Nev. 412, 414, 183 P.2d 639, 640 (1947). Hence,
this argument was not waived.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 1947A c ,Y
atamas
The child must be made a party to the
action. If he is a minor, he must be represented by
his general guardian or a guardian ad litem
appointed by the court. The child's mother or
father may not represent the child as guardian or
otherwise,
(Emphasis added.) 2 In this case, the district court failed to join J.J. as a
party to the action. That failure renders its judgments void.
Moreover, we note that the district court failed to properly
consider Jackson's NRCP 60(b) motion for relief from judgment. Pursuant
to NRCP 60(b), a party may be relieved from a final judgment for mistake
or fraud. Jackson argued in his NRCP 60(b) motion that Hoagland
deceived him into believing that he was J.J.'s father. Additionally,
Hoagland recognized at the hearing that it was not until J.J. was two-
years-old that she informed Jackson he may not be J.J.'s father, lending
credence to Jackson's claim of mistake or fraud. But the district court
failed to inquire further, instead addressing its previous forewarning that
its earlier paternity determination would be final, and then summarily
denying Jackson's motion. We conclude that this failure by the district
court to properly consider and make findings as to Jackson's claim of
mistake or fraud was an abuse of discretion. See State v. Eighth Judicial
Dist. Court, 127 Nev. 927, 931-32, 267 P.3d 777, 780 (2011) ("An arbitrary
or capricious exercise of discretion is one founded on prejudice or
2 NRS 126.101(1) was amended in 2013, rendering joinder of the
child and representation by a guardian permissive, rather than
mandatory. 2013 Nev. Stat., ch. 209, § 2, at 791. We note that the
amendment does not influence the outcome here.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1047A e
preference rather than on reason, or contrary to the evidence or
established rules of law." (internal quotations omitted)). Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court REVERSED AND
REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with
this order.
taft."1-53s---QCTh
,
Parraguirre
Hardesty
, J.
Douglas
J.
Cherr
J.
Saitt
Gibbons
Pickering
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 194 , A
cc: Department J
Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, LLP/Las Vegas
Attorney General/Las Vegas
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A e