Appeal on jurisdiction of Family Court argued

A jurisdictional battle heard by the Nevada Supreme Court on Monday could affect a multitude of cases in Clark County Family Court.

"Thousands of people will be impacted in the future," said family law practitioner Marshal Willick and former Family Court Judge Bob Lueck in a rehearing of the landmark Las Vegas case Landreth v. Malik, in which the high court on Dec. 24 ruled a Family Court judge did not have the authority to rule on a property dispute involving an unmarried couple without children.

Lueck and Willick were part of a group that filed a friend of the court brief with the court seeking to persuade the justices to reverse the decision.

The hotly contested 4-3 decision had dramatic repercussions on the court, its judges and the attorneys who practice family law. For starters, said Lueck, the decisions of judges who ruled on hundreds of adult name changes since Family Court opened at Bonanza and Pecos roads in 1993 might be null and void.

Thousands more could be affected in the future, said Willick, particularly given the constantly moving target of what defines a family in modern America.

The decision affects thousands of couples living together in Nevada and Nevada's Domestic Partnership Act, which took effect roughly two months before the high court issued its ruling.

The act gives domestic partners the same rights, protections, benefits, obligations and responsibilities of any other party to a civil contract. Attorneys who primarily practice family law need guidance on what to tell clients; Family Court judges need to know whether they are equal to other district judges.

When asked why unmarried couples and domestic partners can't litigate their disputes in civil court, Willick and Lueck said the answer is two-pronged. Civil courts are already burdened by a heavy caseload, Willick said. And Family Court judges and family law attorneys are specially trained to decide property disputes that arise in families, Lueck said.

"The way a civil judge divides property in a dispute is far different than how a trained family judge would go forward," Lueck said. " You're dealing with intimate relationships. The judge has special training and a different philosophy."

The appeal heard Monday regards a default judgment stemming from a property dispute between Amit Malik and Dlinn Landreth, who lived together in Las Vegas for four years. In September 2006, a year after the childless couple parted ways, Malik filed an action in Clark County Family Court, seeking half the equity in a valley home, half of other property acquired during the relationship and all of his personal property.

Landreth failed to file a timely answer although Malik had granted several oral and written time extensions. He then filed the default and gave notice to Landreth.

Landreth moved to set the default aside, but a judge denied her motion and awarded Malik half the equity and granted his other requests.

Landreth appealed the decision on the basis of subject matter jurisdiction.

Justice Michael Douglas wrote the contested first opinion for the majority that said the court had limited jurisdiction because its authority is derived from state law. But Lueck and Willick argue that while Family Court judges have additional duties insofar as family law is concerned, they retain their general jurisdiction authority.

Landreth's attorney Jonathan Hansen kept his argument succinct: The statute is clear and concise: Civil disputes that don't involve a married couple or children should be heard in the civil division.

The dissent in the first appeal written by Justice James Hardesty "reasoned that the statute was open to more than one interpretation." Hardesty argued Family Court judges have as much authority as district judges in the criminal and civil divisions.

The effect of the December ruling began taking shape the day after the Supreme Court published the opinion. On Christmas Day, police were no longer allowed to call Family Court judges to obtain search warrants.

From there, said Lueck, more issues cropped up.

"I know this isn't a death penalty case," said Willick. "I know it's kind of inside the beehive stuff, but this will affect thousands of people."

Contact Doug McMurdo at dmcmurdo@reviewjournal.com or 702-224-5512 or read more courts coverage at lvlegalnews.com.