Doan v. Wilkerson

Summary

The Nevada Supreme Court held that a motion to modify or obtain relief from a divorce decree under NRCP 60(b) is subject to the rule’s six-month time limit. It further held that equitable relief through an independent action was unavailable because the FAA retirement benefit had been disclosed and considered during the divorce proceedings, even though it was not expressly included in the written decree.

Holdings

1. NRCP 60(b)'s six-month time limitation applies to a motion for relief from or modification of a divorce decree.
2. After the six-month NRCP 60(b) period expires, relief may be pursued only through an independent action on equitable grounds, and a court may treat a motion as an independent action based on its substance rather than its label.
3. An independent action for equitable relief from a final or unreviewable judgment is available only in exceptional circumstances sufficient to prevent a grave miscarriage of justice.
4. An asset is not an omitted asset subject to postjudgment partition merely because it was not mentioned in the written divorce decree; the relevant inquiry is whether it was litigated and adjudicated during the divorce proceedings.

Questions Presented

1. Whether NRCP 60(b)'s six-month time limitation applies to a motion seeking relief from or modification of a divorce decree's property distribution.
2. Whether an untimely motion may be treated as an independent equitable action for relief from the judgment.
3. Whether a marital asset disclosed and discussed during the divorce proceedings but omitted from the written decree was unadjudicated and therefore subject to postjudgment partition.
4. Whether the circumstances justified equitable relief from the final divorce decree.

Disposition

reversed