The Nevada Supreme Court in an en banc setting on Monday reheard the "landmark" Landreth v. Malik, 125 Nev. Adv. op. 61 (2009), a case that limited the jurisdiction of state family courts to married parties and children, but not unmarried, childless cohabitating couples.
Any guesses as to how the Supremes will come down on this one?
Landreth wrecked havoc with the family court. Hopefully the Supreme's take this opportunity to overrule this one.
ReplyDeleteAnything that limits the power of the "Family Courts" is good. Bozos.
ReplyDeleteIf your not married, you are not a family. Sorry, just the plain truth. Live with someone outside the confines of marriage you do not get the stuff! Go litigate in court but leave the already screwed up family court alone.
ReplyDeleteWhy do people love destroying the family?
ReplyDeleteIt seems plain. If the parties involved aren't married, or aren't registered domestic partners, the family courts hae no business getting involved in a division of property. They are courts of limited jurisdiction, similar to Article I courts on the federal level. The fact that the Nevada Constitution gives the legislature the power to create family courts no more gives the Family Courts general jurisdiction than does the fact that art. I authorizes Congress to create inferior tribunals give Tax Court the authority to hear criminal cases.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, the NV const. states that the legislature can prescribe the jurisdiction of the family court. That the leg. did does not violate separation of powers.
So what would completely divest a family judge of signing off on orders related to probate, OR Releases, etc. I suppose it would also prevent judges from signing warrants or OR Releases for issues outside of their jurisdiction. I don't really care one way or the other, but it sounds like more procedural hoops.
ReplyDeleteI think the Supreme Court reaffirms its decision and rules that it was correct in the first case. The answer is, if you are not married or in a legally sanctioned domestic partnership, you are not subject to the cases which Family Courts are to hear.
ReplyDeleteThe facts were pretty clear in Landreth: Malik filed in the wrong Court. It was Malik's mistake. If they were not former romantic partners but were roommates, no one would think twice about saying Family Court was the wrong forum. If they were business partners who shared the property in question, no one would think twice about saying Malik filed in the wrong Court.
Presumably the Court could try to "split the non-existent baby" in this case and determine that NRS 3.223 should have an analog to NRS 3.221 and that Family Courts (as District Courts) should have the authority to transfer matters to corresponding civil District Court without dismissal as the sanction for lack of SMJ.
If this is the law of the land, then why does a family court appointed magistrate preside over the extension of TPO's between those that merely co-habitate. I've never had a client of mine receive an extended order. However this jurisdictional argument sounds promising for those still under an order promulgated after this opinion.
ReplyDelete@1:25,
ReplyDeleteBecause NRS 3.223(2) gives them that jurisdiction.
10:03 - statistically speaking, 92.7% of people that love destroying the family are members of the family they are destroying.
ReplyDeleteThe other 7.3% are just sick bastards.
Some of you didn't open the link. This is actually a compelling case for anyone who works in domestic relations.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with 10:03 and cannot understand how the word "prescribe" was intended to limit the powers of duly elected District Court judges.
ReplyDeleteHad the Legislature intended to limit the powers of the Family Court they would have used the word "proscribe" instead.
Complain all you want about the Family Court all you want, but its judges are Constitutionally elected District Court Judges. The notion that the establishment of a specialized branch of the District Court in a County can suddenly divest a judge of the power to hear cases seems disingenuous.
10:10 here,
ReplyDeleteThe thought of a legislature "proscribing" a court, or it's jurisdiction, makes me giggle.
You may need to pull out a dictionary, 3:08.
Maybe you schmuck should read the decision and the dissent. Either Family Court judges are D.Ct. judges or not. the Court flubbed it up.
ReplyDeleteThe State Constitution trumps the statute.
6:04 PM: Okay, Barry Goldwater. I thought you were dead?
ReplyDelete