Opinion
No. 80398-COA
08-24-2020
ALEXANDER RAMOS, Appellant, v. NA LI RAMOS, Respondent.
ORDER OF REVERSAL AND REMAND
Alexander Ramos appeals from a post-divorce decree order in a family matter. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Mathew Harter, Judge.
The parties were divorced by way of a decree of divorce entered in 2007. Pursuant to the decree, as relevant here, the parties' marital residence was held in trust with each party and their minor child all retaining a one-third interest. In 2010, the parties stipulated to dissolve the trust and respondent Na Li Ramos stipulated to quitclaim her one-third interest in the property to Alexander and the minor child in equal shares. Alexander asserts that he subsequently quitclaimed his interest in the property to the minor child, but that he intended the transfer to be temporary. And in an effort to transfer the title back into both Alexander and the child's names, a guardian ad litem was appointed to represent the child's interests. The guardian ad litem moved for an order allowing the property to be sold and any proceeds therefrom to be held in a blocked account for the benefit of the minor. The district court granted the motion over Alexander's opposition, and Alexander appealed.
On appeal from that order, this court reversed and remanded the district court's order, concluding that it failed to consider Alexander's arguments and failed to make any findings of fact to support its conclusions that the child held a 100 percent interest in the property and that the sale of the property was in the child's best interest. See Ramos v. Ramos, Docket No. 73398-COA (Order of Reversal and Remand, April 11, 2019). Thus, this court instructed the district court, on remand, to address any relevant arguments from the parties and set forth appropriate findings and legal conclusions to support its decision. Id. On remand, the district court set the matter for further proceedings and, after a hearing, entered an order concluding the opposite of its first order—that not only did the child not hold a 100 percent interest, but that Alexander and Na Li each held a 50 percent interest in the property, such that the child held no interest at all. Based on this conclusion, the district court again ordered the property sold, but ordered that the parties would share any net proceeds equally. This appeal followed.
This court reviews the district court's decisions in divorce proceedings for an abuse of discretion. Williams v. Williams, 120 Nev. 559, 566, 97 P.3d 1124, 1129 (2004). This court will not disturb a district court's decision that is supported by substantial evidence. Id. Substantial evidence is that which a reasonable person may accept as adequate to sustain a judgment. Id.
Here, as noted above, the district court's order summarily concludes that the parties to this appeal are the real parties in interest and that they share the property jointly. But the district court's order again fails to make any findings of fact or state any conclusions of law in support of its decision. The only purported finding in the court's order is that the transfer of the property to the child "was possibly an invalid transfer;" thus, the court did not even conclude whether the transfer was valid or not.
We note that the district court's order also indicates that this court's prior order of reversal and remand "alluded" that the transfer was invalid. But this court did not, and does not now, make any comment as to the merits of the arguments. Rather, the prior order only indicated, as does this order, that the district court is required to address the parties' arguments, including whether the transfer was valid, and make any relevant findings in the first instance.
Based on these summary conclusions and having reviewed the documents before us, this court still cannot conclude that the district court's decision was made for appropriate reasons. See Davis v. Ewalefo, 131 Nev. 445, 450, 352 P.3d 1139, 1142-43 (2015) ("Although this court reviews a district court's discretionary determinations deferentially, deference is not owed to legal error, or to findings so conclusory they may mask legal error." (internal citations omitted)). We note, again, that the district court's order does not address any of the arguments raised by either party. Therefore, on remand, the district court shall address any relevant arguments relating to whether the transfer of the property was proper and who owns the property, and set forth appropriate findings and legal conclusions to support its ultimate decision.
Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court REVERSED AND REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with this order.
Insofar as the parties raise arguments that are not specifically addressed in this order, we have considered the same and conclude that they either do not present a basis for relief or need not be reached given the disposition of this appeal. We likewise deny all other requests for relief currently pending with this court.
/s/_________, C.J.
Gibbons
/s/_________, J.
Tao
/s/_________, J.
Bulla cc: Hon. Mathew Harter, District Judge
Alexander Ramos
Na Li Ramos
Eighth District Court Clerk