June 24, 2025, Oral Arguments
Melton vs. Lawson
Las Vegas – 1:30 p.m. – Court of Appeals
Neyman vs. Neyman
Las Vegas – 2:15 p.m.– Court of Appeals
Melton vs. Lawson
Docket No. 88356-COA
Las Vegas – 1:30 p.m. – Court of Appeals
This case involves a complaint, or petition, by Katherine Melton to hold Stephanee Lawson liable for alleged fraudulent, coercive, abusive, or exploitative actions she committed when she was her late mother’s purported caretaker that resulted in Melton losing her claims to her mother’s estate. Melton also alleged that Lawson was physically and psychologically abusive and negligent towards her mother. The district court dismissed Melton’s complaint without prejudice but gave her leave to amend it to satisfy Nevada pleading standards. When Melton did not timely file an amended complaint, the district court dismissed her entire case with prejudice. Melton appeals from that dismissal, arguing that she sufficiently pleaded several causes of action. She also argues that the district court erred in not applying a heightened standard of scrutiny that applies when a court is considering case-concluding sanctions, as a dismissal with prejudice amounts to a case-concluding sanction. Lawson responds that dismissal with prejudice was appropriate and that a dismissal with prejudice does not amount to a case-concluding sanction, thus a heightened level of scrutiny should not apply.
Neyman vs. Neyman
Docket No. 86780-COA
Las Vegas – 2:15 p.m.– Court of Appeals
This is an appeal from a district court order denying in part and granting in part a motion to modify post-divorce alimony and child support and for attorney fees and costs. Appellant raises the following issues on appeal: (1) whether the district court erroneously determined it lacked jurisdiction to modify alimony; (2) whether the district court erroneously set aside the decree’s reservation-of-jurisdiction provision and failed to consider “compensatory alimony”; (3) whether the district court erroneously adjusted Respondent’s child support obligation without considering NAC 425.150 and failed to address Appellant’s request for adult child support; (4) whether the district court erroneously ordered Appellant to repay rehabilitative alimony amounts that Respondent voluntarily overpaid; (5) whether the district court erroneously found that Appellant was not a prevailing party for the purposes of attorney fees; (6) whether the district court erroneously denied Appellant’s motion to continue the evidentiary hearing; (7) whether the district court erroneously failed to award post-judgment interest to Appellant; (8) whether the district court abused its discretion by striking Appellant’s evidence from the record; (9) whether Appellant is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred on appeal; and (10) whether the case should be reassigned if remanded.