Epstein v. Epstein Opening Brief 1
Epstein v. Epstein Opening Brief 1
*****
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
STATEMENT OF FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
IV. CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
-i-
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
STATE CASES
Franklin v. Bartsas Realty, Inc., 95 Nev. 561, 598 P.2d 1147 (1979) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Gazin v. Hoy, 102 Nev. 621, 730 P.2d 436 (1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,4,6,7
Langevin v. York, 11 Nev. , P.2d (Adv. Opn. No. 184, Dec. 19, 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
McNair v. Rivera, 110 Nev. 463, 874 P.2d 1240 (1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,4,11
Nev. Industrial Dev. v. Benedetti, 103 Nev. 360, 741 P.2d 802 (1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Petersen v. Petersen, 105 Nev. 133, 771 P.2d 159 (1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10, 14, 15
-ii-
STATE STATUTE
NRCP 54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
NRCP 55 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,2,12
NRCP 60 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,2,10,11,12,14,15
SCR 175 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
SCR 182 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Peralta v. Heights Center, Inc., 485 U.S. 80, 108 S.Ct. 896, 99 L.Ed. 2d 75 (1988) . . . . . . . . . . 6
In Marriage of Roehn, 216 Ill. App. 3d 891, 576 N.E.2d 560 ( 2d Dist.1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,13
Marriage of Johnston, 206 Ill. App. 3d 262, 562 N.E.2d 1004 (1st Dist. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . 12,13
MISCELLANEOUS
Willick, Res Judicata in Nevada Divorce Law: An Invitation to Fraud, 4 Nev. Fam. L. . . . . . . . . .
Rep., Spr. (1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
-iii-
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
-iv-
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal from denial of Motion for Relief from Judgment requesting that the Decree
of Divorce obtained by default judgment be set aside; Hon. Michael P. Gibbons, Ninth Judicial
District Court, Douglas County, Nevada. Plaintiff, Respondent Ursula Alwine Epstein ("Ursula")
filed for divorce, on December 19, 1994. I ROA 1. Appellant, Edwin Alvin Epstein retained The
Law Office of Marshal S. Willick in Las Vegas, Nevada to represent him in May, 1995 and Mr.
Willick advised counsel for Ursula by telephone that he would be representing Edwin. I ROA 113.
Additionally, from January 17, 1995 to October 3, 1995, counsel for both parties communicated in
writing and engaged in settlement negotiations. I ROA 113 through 118; I ROA 122.
Then, on September 14, 1995, Ursula, mailed from Lake Tahoe, a Praecipe for Default and
Affidavit in Support of Divorce by Default addressed to Edwin himself and to Mr. Willick. I ROA
12, 13. Both Edwin and his counsel were located in Las Vegas, Nevada. The next day, September
A Decree of Divorce was entered on October 3, 1995. I ROA 18. A Qualified Domestic
Edwin filed a Motion for Relief from Judgment on December 1, 1995. I ROA 46. Ursula
filed a response on January 29, 1996. I ROA 74. The Court entered its Order denying Edwin’s
Motion for Relief from Judgment on March 13, 1996. I ROA 189. Edwin filed Notice of Appeal on
-1-
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
Edwin and Ursula were married for twenty-nine years. The Decree of Divorcee Ursula
obtained by default does not accurately address the community property obtained during the 29 year
marriage. Edwin’s affidavit in support of his Motion for Relief from Judgment states that while he
was hospitalized in southern Nevada, “Ursula set up her household in South Lake Tahoe, California
knowing full well that I could not live there. After taking what she wanted, she sent belongings to
southern Nevada for me...” I ROA 58. Additionally, in his Affidavit in Support of Reply to
Plaintiff’s Response to Motion for Relief From Judgment, Edwin states, “...I believe that she set her
plan in motion in March of 1994. Prior to that, Ursula made sure to gather everything in the way of
personal possessions, both community and my separate property, and I was left with no choice at all
as to these items. In short, Ursula took everything that she could fit into her present house...” I ROA
131. Edwin was precluded from conducting discovery and would offer that an approximated
breakdown of the community property each of the parties had upon divorce would indicate that
Ursula obtained some 70% and Defendant Edwin received about 30%.
Edwin is 67 years old, in poor health, suffers from diabetes and arthritis, has undergone four
eye surgeries and has had a toe amputated. I ROA 57, paragraph 6; I ROA 132, paragraph 5; I ROA
135-188. Due to leg surgery he was hospitalized and unavailable to assist counsel for periods during
negotiation of a settlement in this matter. I ROA 57, paragraph 6. Further, Ursula knew that Edwin
would be in Germany in September and October 1995. I ROA 57, lines 26-28.
As set out below, Ursula prevented Edwin from presenting the merits of his case to the court
-2-
ARGUMENT
I. THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT WAS
ENTERED WITH SUFFICIENT AND FAIR NOTICE
Not only did Ursula obtain a default and a division of property in a manner which
circumvented the procedural requirements of NRCP 60(b), she further failed to provide Edwin with
the mandatory three days notice of intent to take default as required by NRCP 55(b)(2).
The procedures for obtaining entry of default and a default judgment are provided for under
NRCP 55. Two steps must be taken: (1) entry of default by the clerk; and (2) subsequent entry of
judgment by default. See NRCP 55; See also 6 Moore, Federal Practice Sec. 55.02[3] at p. 55-9.
Entry of judgment by default can occur in either of two ways. Judgment can be entered by
the clerk of the court where the claim against the defendant is for a “sum certain or for a sum which
can by computation be made certain.” See NRCP 55(b)(1). In all other cases, such as the instant
divorce matter where the property division is not set forth in the complaint (I ROA 2, paragraph V),
judgment by default must be entered by the court following an application therefor. See NRCP
55(b)(2). Where, as in Edwin’s case, a default judgment requires an application to the court, the
provisions of NRCP 55(b)(2) further mandate that the plaintiff serve upon the defendant at least three
Moreover, when a defendant has made an appearance in an action, the failure to give the
notice mandated by NRCP 55(b)(2) renders a subsequent default judgment void. Gazin v. Hoy, 102
Nev. 621, 624, 730 P. 2d 436 (1986); Christy v. Carlisle, 94 Nev. 651, 654, 584 P. 2d 687 (1978);
McNair v. Rivera, 110 Nev. 463, 469, 874 P. 2d 1240 (1994). The district court erred in finding that
-3-
In this regard, in Gazin v. Hoy, supra, this Court reversed the order of the district court
Likewise, in McNair v. Rivera, supra, the defendant moved to set aside a default judgment
on grounds that the plaintiff failed to give the requisite notice under NRCP 55(b)(2). This Court held:
Furthermore, Section 1019 of the Nevada Civil Practice Manual (Third Edition 1993)
-4-
The failure to give notice and provide a hearing is a fatal procedural
error because without proper notice the judgement is void and will be
set aside.
Id. at 158.
Upon review of the Record on Appeal, it is undeniable that Edwin communicated with
counsel for Ursula before he retained counsel and that he intended to defend this action. I ROA 112.
On May 11, 1995 Edwin’s counsel, Mr. Willick, spoke with counsel for Ursula and advised that he
would be representing Edwin. I ROA 113. Also evident from the Record, is the impatience and
petulance of Ursula in that her counsel was not satisfied with having to speak with a “law assistant”
who indicated she would try to get an Answer on file within the next week, and in direct response,
Mr. Hambsch clearly stated that, “ This is not acceptable.” I ROA 113. Mr. Hambsch in his June
7, 1996 letter admits that he was told that Mr. Willick would be representing Edwin. Further, Mr.
Hambsch was told that an Answer would be forthcoming within the next week. Nevertheless, Mr.
Hambsch requested the “courtesy” of a return call regarding representation of counsel, despite
already knowing that Mr. Willick represented Edwin. As such, the district court abused its discretion
in finding that no appearance by Edwin’s counsel was ever entered. I ROA 189.
Mr. Hambsch acknowledged that he was told an Answer would be filed, yet his correspon-
dence substantially belied his client’s intentions to obtain a formal, filed Answer. This June 1995
letter illustrates that, from the beginning, Ursula and her counsel stated they wanted something and
when advised they would receive it, they would in turn state they wanted something different.
Ursula was told she would receive a filed Answer which was “not acceptable” as she really wanted
-5-
Further, the letter admits that on May 10, 1995, Edwin had been advised to file an answer
to avoid default, the answer was not filed and neither was the default taken as of June 7, 1995. As
Edwin and his counsel engaged in the negotiation process with Ursula, one thing became apparent:
that Ursula’s letter representations regarding default could not be relied upon as meaningful or
genuine, and therefore, were not sufficient or fair notice of anything other than Ursula’s arbitrary
negotiation tactics.
Upon further review of the Record on Appeal, it is also undeniable that Ursula never filed
or served a three-day notice of her intent to take default or her application for default judgment. In
Gazin v. Hoy, supra, the respondent never served appellant with the required notice of respondent’s
intent to obtain the default judgment; indeed, the default judgment was obtained the day after entry
of appellant’s default and that default was void. Id. at 624. Similarly, Ursula mailed the Precipe for
Default and then took default the next day. The purpose of the notice requirement is to eliminate
unfairness and surprise and the record shows that Edwin was informally by letter informed of an
apparently empty intention of Ursula as to default, which was never acted upon until over eight
months later. It is respectfully submitted that after nine months of communication and negotiation,
a properly served Praecipe for Default would have provided fair and sufficient notice of a valid
formal intention to take Default. Simply put, Ursula did not comply with the mandates of NRCP
Additionally, due process requires a judgment taken without any notice to be set aside. The
Supreme Court of the United States has held that a meritorious defense need not be shown where
a default or default judgment is entered without any notice to the defendant. See Peralta v. Heights
Center, Inc., 485 U.S. 80, 108 S. Ct. 896, 99 L. Ed. 2d 75 (1988). In the instant matter, by the time
-6-
counsel for Edwin received the Praecipe for Default, Affidavit in Support of Divorce by Default and
a copy of the “proposed” Default, all had already been taken and entered the day after they were
Upon receipt, Edwin prepared his Answer and the undersigned contacted counsel pursuant
to NRCP 60(d) for Ursula who advised that the Default had been filed and would not be lifted.
Furthermore, the district court erred in finding that counsel for Ursula did not violate SCR 182 by
communicating directly with Edwin by mailing him a copy of the Default and then copies of the
already entered Decree of Divorce and Qualified Domestic Relations Order. I ROA 34; I ROA 39.
The district court also erred in finding that Ursula’s counsel did not violate SCR 175.
Counsel for Ursula was informed as to the identity of Edwin’s counsel and that Edwin intended to
proceed with the lawsuit, and Mr. Hambsch admitted that an impasse had resulted from the
respective positions of the parties. I ROA 112; See SCR 175; Gazin v. Hoy, 102 Nev. 621, 730 P.2d
436 (1986)(a course of negotiation between attorneys is sufficient to constitute an appearance for
purpose of written notice requirement); Rowland v. Lepire, 95 Nev. 639, 600 P.2d 237
(1979)(judgment annulled and remanded where plaintiff’s counsel had default entered and later
secured default judgment without notice to defendants’ counsel); Price v. Dunn, 106 Nev. 100, 787
P.2d 785 (1990)(reversal of order denying motion to set aside default judgment terminating parental
rights; judicial policy favoring a decision on the merits heightens in domestic relations matters).
Edwin’s response had been sufficient to indicate that he wished to proceed and contest this matter.
As such, before judgment can properly be entered, Edwin was entitled to notice and hearing. See
NRCP 55(b)(2).
-7-
II. THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT THE DIVISION OF COMMUNITY
PROPERTY WAS NOT PROCURED BY FRAUD
Ursula committed a fraud upon the court by mischaracterizing Edwin’s separate property as
community property and otherwise causing the court to divide the community property in an unequal
and inequitable way. The district court erred in finding that the decree was not procured by fraud
and that there was no coercion on Ursula’s part. The court ignored Edwin’s affidavits stating he was
distressed by Ursula’s disregard for his ill health and also stating that Ursula chose to take default
when Edwin was in Germany. I ROA 57; I ROA 116. Additionally, Ursula had already made off
with the bulk of the parties' assets before the "uncontested" divorce decree was entered on September
29, 1995. I ROA 131, paragraph 3. The issue of fraud is also set out and addressed more fully in
section III.
The palpable silence of Ursula’s Decree as to property issues allowed her to seize most of
the community property and hide that fact from review by the court. The district court abused its
discretion in finding that no fraud existed, thus, the judgment should be set aside as to do otherwise
would permit Ursula to get away with such outrageous conduct. See Willick, Res Judicata in Nevada
Divorce Law: An Invitation to Fraud, 4 Nev. Fam. L. Rep., Spr. 1989, at 1. I ROA 62.
Edwin asserts that the division of property awarded in Ursula’s Decree flies in the face of
-8-
(Emphasis added). The district court erred in finding that it was only after the default judgment was
entered did Edwin alleged the decree was unfair in substance and achieved by fraud and coercion.
This Court has affirmed that Nevada is a notice pleading state and that any issue fairly noticed can
be tried. Langevin v. York, 11 Nev. , P.2d (Adv. Opn. No. 184, Dec. 19, 1995). Here,
Edwin was prejudiced by being deprived of a trial on the merits and is being punished for addressing
an issue which was fairly noticed in Ursula’s complaint--the issue of community property division.
I ROA 2, paragraph V. Had discovery taken place allowing a trial to take place, a judgment could
have been made as to the precise character and value of the property of Edwin and Ursula. That the
“Settlement Agreement” and the complaint, and the decree are all consistently silent as to the precise
character and value of the parties’ property is no evidence that Ursula did not secret items of property
as alleged by Edwin. I ROA 94, paragraph 7, sections A and C; I ROA 132, paragraph 3; I ROA 131,
paragraph 6 and 8.
Additionally, in finding lack of coercion, the district court failed to take into account Edwin’s
ill health. Likewise, Ursula denied the fact of Edwin’s poor health and stated in August, 1995
through counsel, that, “...it is our understanding that Mr. Epstein has not been hospitalized over the
last several weeks. At most, he has been an out patient for on-going treatment of his diabetes. He
has, however, recently returned from a recent vacation in Hawaii with his girlfriend. Is that the
reason for your delay in being able to respond to our prior correspondence?” I ROA 116. It is
submitted that without direction and authorization from Edwin who was periodically hospitalized
and out of the country during the negotiation process (I ROA 57, line 26; I ROA 59, paragraph 15)
counsel’s ability to respond on Edwin’s behalf was directly hindered and the resulting delay was
excusable. The issue of excusable neglect is more fully set out and addressed below in section III.
-9-
Moreover, the “Settlement Agreement” was twenty-one (21) pages in length and counsel for
Ursula admitted that it was understandable that Edwin, a layman, would object. I ROA 116.
Furthermore, that “ Settlement Agreement” misrepresents that the parties are in “reasonably good
health.” I ROA 102, paragraph 26. In light of the inherent inequity of the terms of the decree as
drafted for Ursula, this Court is urged to remand this matter for trial on the merits.
The standard of relief allowing the setting aside of default judgments is governed by NRCP
The standard for setting aside a decree of divorce was met and satisfied in this case. Edwin’s motion
was timely brought and adjudicated in accordance with the discretion of the district court. See
Petersen v. Petersen, 105 Nev. 133, 771 P.2d 159 (1989); Dobson v. Dobson, 108 Nev. 346, 830
P.2d 1336 (1992)(bringing a motion under NRCP 60(b)(3) is a proper avenue for attacking a void
judgement); Cook v. Cook, 112 Nev. Adv. Op. 24 (Feb. 29, 1996).
Edwin satisfied the test set forth in Hotel Last Frontier Corporation v. Frontier Properties,
Inc., 79 Nev. 150, 380 P.2d 293 (1963) in that 1) Edwin made prompt application to remove the
-10-
default judgment given his ill health and unavailability to assist his counsel; 2)Edwin did not intend
to delay the divorce proceeding; 3) The inequity of the property distribution shows a good faith basis
for Edwin’s request for relief; and 4) There was observable lack of knowledge and by counsel for
both parties as to the adequacy of procedural notice with regard to the three day notice requirement.
Edwin’s Motion for relief was filed on December 1, 1995 and well within the six month time period
of NRCP 60. I ROA 6. Edwin’s Answer was filed on December 1, 1995. I ROA 40. Edwin
prepared his Answer and attempted to begin litigating this matter as soon as reasonable given his
recuperation and travel. The inequity of the property distribution is reasonably inferred by the lack
of valuation and any inventory in the decree. Finally, counsel for both parties engaged in
communication after the action was commenced and Edwin’s counsel had reason to believe that
default would not be entered. Hence, it is clear that the district court erred in its ruling not to set
aside the decree and Edwin’s Answer should be accorded the force and effect as if entered at the
In this regard, default judgments are not favored by the law. As stated by the Nevada
Supreme Court in Franklin v. Bartsas Realty, Inc., 95 Nev. 561, 598 P.2d 1147 (1979):
[It is] the basic policy to have each case decided upon its merits. In
the normal course of events, justice is best served by such a policy.
Because of this policy, the general observation may be made that an
appellate court is more likely to affirm a lower court’s ruling setting
aside a default judgment than it is to affirm a refusal to do so.
95 Nev. at 563 (Emphasis in original). See also McNair v. Rivera, 110 Nev. 463, 471, 874 P.2d 1240
(1994).
Thus, in light of the Nevada Supreme Court’s ruling that default divorce decrees should be
liberally set aside, the district court should have granted Edwin’s Motion for Relief from Judgment
-11-
and vacated the Decree of Divorce. The Decree of Divorce obtained by Ursula is void within the
meaning of NRCP 60(b)(3) as Ursula did not provide three days notice of her intent to take default
as mandated under NRCP 55(b)(2) and the default Decree of Divorce awarded property to Ursula far
For example, with regard to the parties 1991 tax debt, Ursula refused to contribute to
payment of the tax debt and instead pressed her demands for settlement. On a finite budget, Edwin
was forced to deduct Ursula’s portion of the debt from her support payments as it has always been
his position that she was required to pay a portion of the amount specified. Immediately thereafter,
Ursula had the default entered. Accordingly, the Decree of Divorce should be amended to recite that
In this case Ursula has also entered a void Qualified Domestic Relations Order which is
unenforceable as a matter of law. The Qualified Domestic Relations Order is a void judgment.
Nevada adheres to the “pure borrowed law” approach in determining the divisibility of assets
according to the law of the state in which those assets accrued. See Braddock v. Braddock, 91 Nev.
735, 542 P.2d 1060 (1975). Edwin’s teacher’s retirement was accrued in Illinois. The Illinois
Teacher’s Retirement System is prevented from honoring Qualified Domestic Relations Orders
(QDRO). See 40 ILCS 5/16-190. The courts of Illinois have held in striking down a QDRO directed
to the Firefighters’ Pension Fund, that a pension plan established or maintained by a political
Marriage of Roehn, 216 Ill. App. 3d 891, 576 N.E.2d 560 (2d Dist. 1991); Marriage of Johnston, 206
Ill. App. 3d 262, 562 N.E.2d 1004(1st Dist. 1990)(holding that QDROs issued pursuant to Internal
-12-
Revenue Code, sections 410(a)(13) and 414(p)(1)(A) and (B), and the Employment Retirement
Income Security Act, section 206(d)(3) do not apply to public pension funds).
With regard to military retirement benefits, the parties were married for almost three years
F. All interest in the Survivor’s Benefit Plan (SBP) benefits associated with Defendant’s
United States Army Retirement benefits, entitled under Social Security No. 33-20-3017, as
more particularly described in paragraph 4 of this judgment;
I ROA 31.
Nevada law provides that all forms of retirement, whether or not vested, and whether or not
matured, are community property subject to division. See Forrest v. Forrest, 99 Nev. 602, 668 P.2d
275 (1983); Gemma v. Gemma, 105 Nev. 458, 778 P.2d 429 (1989); Fondi v. Fondi, 106 Nev. 856,
802 P.2d 1264 (1990). In this case Ursula is attempting to convert Edwin’s retirement to her own
use. It is necessary to amend the decree to ensure that Edwin receives his full portion of the
converted benefit. Accordingly, the Decree of Divorce previously issued in this case should be
amended to more accurately and completely divide the "military retirement benefits," to insure that
the spousal interest "tracks" the military percentage. Edwin agrees that Ursula would be entitled one
half of the military retirement benefits earned between March 1966 and February 1969. Thus, her
Apparently, the parties mutually committed error regarding the Survivor's Benefit Plan
benefits, whereby a spouse or former spouse can be awarded an interest to secure the military
retirement benefits award that would continue in the event of the member's death prior to that of the
former spouse. Edwin’s intent in establishing the SBP program was to provide survivor’s benefits
-13-
for his one minor child and Ursula’s two minor children, whom Edwin legally adopted, during their
minority. I ROA 57, paragraph 4. After the children emancipated, Ursula became the only
beneficiary. Edwin would request to terminate the plan or reduce the benefits from 55% to 35%.
Edwin has asserted that the items noted above were caused by Ursula's fraud. See Carlson
v. Carlson, 108 Nev. 358, 832 P.2d 380(1992) (where wife shows that property distribution was
caused by either mutual mistake or husband's fraudulent misrepresentation, case remanded for district
It is respectfully submitted that Edwin has demonstrated excusable neglect, and mistake on
her part, and misconduct and mistake by Ursula and her counsel, and that Edwin is entitled to relief
from the Decree under NRCP 60(b)(1) and (2). The property and debt disposition in the existing
Decree should be set aside. This Court is urged to correct an abuse of the divorce process and the
In Petersen v. Petersen, 105 Nev. 133, 771 P.2d 159 (1989), a wife was victimized by an
inequitable property settlement. This Court held in Petersen that when a motion such as this one is
filed within the six months allowed by NRCP 60(b), alleging fraud or mutual mistake, and seeking
for the first time to address the fairness of the decree of divorce, the motion should be considered on
its merits. This Court remanded the matter to the district court "to determine whether Wife's
allegations of injustice are substantial enough to support her motion to set aside the judgment and
Moreover, this Court has held that when a motion, like Edwin’s, is filed within the six
months allowed by NRCP 60(b), alleging fraud and seeking for the first time to address the fairness
of the divorce, that the matter should be considered on its merits. Id.
-14-
Public policy demands that this situation be corrected. See generally Nev. Industrial Dev.
v. Benedetti, 103 Nev. 360, 741 P.2d 802 (1987) (correcting unjust enrichment outweighs policy of
res judicata). It is respectfully submitted that Edwin has demonstrated that neglect, if any on his part,
was excusable. He has shown coercion, fraud and misconduct by Ursula and her counsel.
Accordingly Edwin is entitled to relief from the property distribution under NRCP 60(b)(1) and (2).
IV. CONCLUSION
The district court abused its discretion when it refused to set aside the default decree. The
district court did not properly construe the facts of Edwin’s case in light of the law of this State
regarding the decree obtained by Ursula. The district court’s denial of Edwin’s request for relief
deprived Edwin of the opportunity to have this matter heard on its merits. As such, the court’s order
The district court judge elected to rule that Ursula was diligent in negotiations with Edwin
and then ruled that Edwin was unresponsive when he did not accede to Ursula’s unacceptable
demands. The district court impermissibly allowed Ursula to obtain most of the community property,
much of Edwin’s separate property and then, punished Edwin for bringing this unjust enrichment of
Upon this record, the decree in this case should be set aside and this matter remanded.
Edwin’s Answer and Counterclaim should be allowed to stand and this case should be placed on
schedule for trial. The parties should be mutually enjoined from disposing of, or encumbering, the
community property assets from this long-term marriage. Edwin, should be granted a reasonable time
within which to conduct discovery into the value of the assets known to exist, and the extent of assets
-15-
Further, public policy requires such a holding for unless this Court exercises its jurisdiction,
the merits of Edwin’s case will never be determined. Accordingly, this case should be remanded and
Respectfully submitted,
LAW OFFICE OF MARSHAL S. WILLICK
-16-
I hereby certify that I have read this appellate brief, and to the best of my knowledge,
information, and belief, it is not frivolous or interposed for any improper purpose. I further certify
that this brief complies with all applicable Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure, in particular NRAP
28(e), which requires every assertion in the brief regarding matters in the record to be supported by
appropriate references to the record on appeal. I understand that I may be subject to sanctions in the
event that the accompanying brief is not in conformity with the requirements of the Nevada Rules of
Appellate Procedure.
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
-17-
I hereby certify that on the day of August, 1996 I deposited a true and correct copy of
the foregoing Appellant’s Opening Brief, in the U.S. Mail, first class postage, prepaid pursuant to
Michael P. Hambsch
2520 Lake Tahoe Boulevard, Suite 2
South Lake Tahoe, California 96150-7744
-18-