Hale v. Hale ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                   Inc., 
    109 Nev. 268
    , 271, 
    849 P.2d 305
    , 307 (1993) (explaining that this
    court will not disturb the district court's NRCP 60(b) determination absent
    an abuse of discretion). The party moving for NRCP 60(b) relief bears the
    burden of proof. See Kahn v. Orme, 
    108 Nev. 510
    , 513-14, 
    835 P.2d 790
    ,
    793 (1992), overruled on other grounds by Epstein v. Epstein, 
    113 Nev. 1401
    , 1405, 
    950 P.2d 771
    , 773 (1997). Here, substantial evidence in the
    record supports the district court's conclusion that appellant did not
    establish that he was incompetent either at the time he entered the
    property division agreement or at the time of the divorce proceedings. See
    Ogawa v. Ogawa, 
    125 Nev. 660
    , 668, 221 13 .3d 699, 704 (2009) (explaining
    that district court factual findings will be upheld if not clearly erroneous
    and if supported by substantial evidence).
    Additionally, while appellant challenges the admissibility of
    testimony by respondent's two expert witnesses and cites to procedural
    deviations from NRCP 16.2(a)(3)(B) (2010) (amended 2012), these
    deviations did not prejudice appellant's preparation for the hearing and,
    thus, are not reversible error. NRCP 61; see also FCHI, LLC v. Rodriguez,
    130 Nev. , P.3d , (Adv. Op. No. 46, October 2, 2014)
    ("[T]he purpose of discovery is to take the 'surprise out of trials of cases so
    that all relevant facts and information pertaining to the action may be
    ascertained in advance of trial." (quoting Washoe Cnty. Bd. of Sch.
    Trustees v. Pirhala, 
    84 Nev. 1
    , 5, 
    435 P.2d 756
    , 758 (1968))). Moreover,
    contrary to appellant's assertions, we conclude that substantial evidence
    supports the district court's determination that the expert witness
    testimony introduced by respondent complied with NRS 50.275, and thus,
    the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the expert
    testimony.   See Hallmark v. Eldridge, 
    124 Nev. 492
    , 498, 
    189 P.3d 646
    ,
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    2
    (0) 1947A    .0
    650 (2008) (noting that this court reviews a district court's decision to
    allow expert testimony for abuse of discretion).
    For the reasons discussed above, we
    ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
    J.
    Hardest
    >#774        , J.
    Douglas
    aut.
    Cherry
    cc:   Hon. T. Arthur Ritchie, Jr., District Judge, Family Court Division
    Moran Law Firm, LLC
    E. Brent Bryson
    Eighth District Court Clerk
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    3
    (0) 1947A ,ze9A.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 61556

Filed Date: 11/13/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021