IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
KEVIN NORTHROP, No. 64589
Appellant,
vs.
THE STATE OF NEVADA, DIVISION
FILED
OF WELFARE AND SUPPORTIVE MAY 2 6 2016
SERVICES; AND TAMMY
GOODNIGHT,
Respondents.
ORDER OF REVERSAL AND REMAND
This is an appeal from a district court order resolving child
support arrears and modifying child support. Second Judicial District
Court, Washoe County; Bridget Robb Peck, Judge.
Following the divorce of appellant Kevin Northrop and
respondent Tammy Goodnight, the former couple entered into a marital
settlement and child custody agreement in 2004, in which Northrop
agreed to pay $500 per month in child support. When Northrop fell
behind on payments, Goodnight and the Division of Welfare and
Supportive Services (DWSS) filed a notice of intent to enforce Northrop's
child support payment. In 2005, a court master recommended a principal
judgment against Northrop for child support arrears that would require
him to make monthly arrears payments in addition to his ongoing monthly
$500 child support obligation. The district court entered an order
approving the master's recommendations.
In November 2006, Northrop was incarcerated for an
unrelated crime, at which time his previously sporadic payments ceased
altogether. In December 2012, DWSS and Goodnight filed a notice of
telephonic hearing and motion to modify the child support order. In
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
A
(0) 1947A er.
January 2013, a court master made the following findings and
recommendations: (1) award DWSS arrears to be paid at $75 per month,
(2) reduce Northrop's child support obligation to $100 per month, (3) order
Northrop to pay monthly health insurance premiums, and (4) prevent
interest from accruing while Northrop remained incarcerated—with all
payments to begin the first full month after Northup's release from prison.
Northrop objected to the court master's findings and recommendations.
DWSS filed a motion to dismiss the matter due to Northrop's failure to
include an application to set the matter for a hearing pursuant to Washoe
District Court Rule 32(2). The district court issued an order denying
Northrop's objection to the court master's findings and recommendations.
Northrop filed the instant appeal challenging the district court's order.
When the district court is asked to enter a judgment for
arrears in child support or alimony payments, this court reviews the
district court's decision for an abuse of discretion. Folks v. Folks, 77 Nev.
45, 47-48, 359 P.2d 92, 93-94 (1961), superseded by statute on other
grounds as stated in Cavell v. Cavell, 90 Nev. 334, 336, 526 P.2d 330, 331
(1974). However, this court reviews questions of law, such as the
sufficiency of pleadings, de novo. See Sadler v. Pacificare of Nev., Inc., 130
Nev., Adv. Op. 98, 340 P.3d 1264, 1266 (2014).
First, Northrop argues that enforcing arrearages against him
was barred by the doctrine of laches due to DWSS's six-year delay in
bringing the action while he was incarcerated, and that the district court
abused its discretion in failing to address this argument. Indeed, we
conclude that the district court abused its discretion in failing to address
the equitable defense raised by Northrop. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.
519, 520 (1972) (noting that pro se pleadings should be held "to less
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A (Vo
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers"); see also
Parkinson v. Parkinson, 106 Nev. 481, 483, 796 P.2d 229, 231 (1990)
(concluding that a party is permitted to assert equitable defenses in a
proceeding to enforce or modify an order for child support), abrogated on
other grounds by River° v. Rivero, 125 Nev. 410, 216 P.3d 213 (2009);
Willmes v. Reno Mun. Court, 118 Nev. 831, 835, 59 P.3d 1197, 1200 (2002)
(concluding that a court's failure to exercise its available discretion can
constitute a manifest abuse of discretion). However, we further conclude
that the district court's failure to consider the equitable defense was
harmless because DWSS's enforcement efforts were not barred by the
doctrine of laches. Miller v. Burk, 124 Nev. 579, 598, 188 P.3d 1112, 1125
(2008) ("To determine whether a challenge is barred by the doctrine of
laches, this court considers (1) whether the party inexcusably delayed
bringing the challenge, (2) whether the party's inexcusable delay
constitutes acquiescence to the condition the party is challenging, and (3)
whether the inexcusable delay was prejudicial to others."). The Miller
factors support rejecting Northrop's laches argument. While DWSS's
delay may have been prejudicial to Northrop pursuant to the third factor,
the delay was not inexcusable, nor did it constitute acquiescence.
Goodnight and DWSS sought to enforce the judgment in 2012. See NRS
125B.145(1), (4) (requiring that the court review a support order every
three years upon a party's request or anytime on the basis of changed
circumstances, but not requiring either party to make such a request
within a certain timeframe).
Second, Northrop argues that DWSS failed to provide him
with proper notice of the enforcement proceeding. We decline to address
this argument because Northrop raises it for the first time on appeal. See
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A
Old Aztec Mine, Inc. v. Brown, 97 Nev. 49, 52-53, 623 P.2d 981, 983-84
(1981) (concluding that failure to object below bars review on appeal).
Third, Northrop argues that the order enforcing child support
improperly included interest. We disagree. The district court acted within
its discretion by approving the court master's findings regarding interest
payments. See M.C. Multi Family Dev., L.L.C. v. Crestdale Assocs., Ltd.,
-
124 Nev. 901, 916, 193 P.3d 536, 546 (2008) (noting that this court
generally reviews an award of interest for abuse of discretion); see also
Am. Sterling Bank v. Johnny Mgmt. LV, Inc., 126 Nev. 423, 428, 245 P.3d
535, 538-39 (2010) ("An abuse of discretion occurs if the district court's
decision is arbitrary or capricious or if it exceeds the bounds of law or
reason." (internal quotation marks omitted)). The court master engaged in
a thoughtful discussion with Goodnight about the merits of imposing
interest payments on the arrearages and decided to waive interest during
Northrop's incarceration, but require Northrop to pay interest that had
already accrued. See NRS 125B.140(2)(c)(1) ("The court shall determine
and include in its order . . . [i]nterest upon the arrearages at a rate
established pursuant to NRS 99.040, from the time each amount became
due . . . unless the court finds that the responsible parent would
experience an undue hardship if required to pay such amounts.").
Fourth, Northrop argues that the district court erred in
approving the court master's recommendation because the
recommendation was prospective in nature. We agree, and conclude that
the district court ignored Nevada's statutory scheme when it approved the
court master's prospective recommendation for child support. See
Settelmeyer & Sons, Inc. v. Smith & Harmer, Ltd., 124 Nev. 1206, 1215,
197 P.3d 1051, 1057 (2008) (noting that appellate issues involving purely
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) I94Th
legal questions are reviewed de novo). Further, DWSS failed to
adequately contest Northrop's argument. See Edwards v. Emperor's
Garden Rest., 122 Nev. 317, 330 n.38, 130 P.3d 1280, 1288 n.38 (2006)
(noting that if a party neglects to fulfill his or her "responsibility to
cogently argue, and present relevant authority, in support of his [or her]
appellate concerns," this court need not consider those claims).
Specifically, the district court approved the findings and
recommendations made by the court master. The court master made a
written finding that Northrop was unable to pay the minimum amount of
$100 pursuant to NRS 125B.080(4) due to his incarceration, and still
recommended that he pay the statutory minimum of $100 monthly upon
his release. Sanders v. State, 119 Nev. 135, 141-42, 67 P.3d 323, 328
(2003) (concluding that a court may "take incarceration into account when
determining whether an individual is excused from paying child support").
Thus, the court master's recommendation was not based on Northrop's
gross monthly income at the time of the January 2013 hearing as defined
by NRS 125B.070(1)(a). Instead, the recommendation was presumably
based on the court master's projection of Northrop's gross monthly income
upon the unspecified future date of his release from prison, though the
court master made no findings as to Northrop's future ability to secure
employment. Such a recommendation ignores NRS 125B.080(4), which
provides that a court should not impose the statutory minimum if it also
makes a written finding that the obligor is unable to pay. Further, the
recommendation subverts the plain language of NRS 125B.145(4), under
which "[a]n order for the support of a child may be reviewed at any time
on the basis of changed circumstances." For example, should Northrop
remain unable to earn an income upon his release and seek modification,
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
5
(0) 1947A
he would be required to take the matter to court and argue that
circumstances have not changed—specifically, that he is still unable to pay
the arrearages—rather than arguing that circumstances have changed.
We therefore conclude that the master's findings and recommendations
create practical concerns, and the district court erred in approving those
findings and recommendations.' Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court REVERSED AND
REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with
this order. 2
Gibbons
cc: Hon. Bridget Robb Peck, District Judge
Mario D. Valencia
Attorney General/Reno
Washoe District Court Clerk
1 0nremand, we instruct the district court to remand the matter to
the court master for recommendations that comport with Nevada's
statutory child support scheme, as delineated in this order.
2 Wehave considered the parties' remaining arguments and conclude
that they are without merit.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
6
(0) 1947A