Schlotfeldt v. Schlotfeldt ( 2016 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
MICHAEL SCHLOTFELDT, No. 69094
Appellant,
vs.
ALISA SCHLOTFELDT,
FILE
Respondent. JUN 1 6 2016
LI E?iAiN
A
CLE *le • URI
BY Steijit
A
REIF TV CLERK
ORDER OF REVERSAL AND REMAND
This is a pro se appeal from a district court order regarding
child support arrears. Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Court
Division, Clark County; Jennifer Elliott, Judge.
The parties divorced in March 2001, and appellant was
ordered to pay monthly child support of $300 for each of their two
children. In March 2002, the youngest child died in a car accident, and
appellant was found responsible and spent 8 years in prison. In July
2006, the parties entered into a stipulation and order providing that upon
appellant's release from prison he was to "pay all child support arrears
and the current child support payment calculated by statute based upon
his then income."
After appellant was released in April 2010, a hearing was held
in a separate child support enforcement action and a master entered a
recommendation that modified appellant's future child support payment to
$328, and reduced to judgment $78,253.55, which included $57,596.27 for
arrears, $16,577.28 for interest, and $4.080.00 for penalties. Appellant
did not file an objection and the recommendation became a court order
under NRS 425.3844(3)(a) on September 17, 2010. The child support issue
came before a master again in 2014, who considered appellant's argument
SUPREME COURT that the parties' 2006 stipulated order excluded the accrual of interest and
OF
NEVADA
penalties during the period of appellant's incarceration. In July 2014, the
(0) 1947A
icp- ( g9 id
master entered a recommendation for $37,780.48 in arrears, $19,910.18 in
interest, and $4,025.08 in penalties, for a total of $61,715.74 owed. The
master noted that equitable relief from the 2010 judgment for arrears
might be available to address a latent ambiguity in the 2006 stipulated
order concerning any waiver of interest and penalties.
In 2015, appellant filed a motion in the district court to
modify, clarify, and set arrears and again argued that the 2010 judgment
for arrears was incorrect because it failed to account for the 2006
stipulated order that waived interest and penalties during his
incarceration. Appellant attached a May 2015 audit from the district
attorney's office indicating that the arrears, interest, and penalties totaled
only $31,076.29 as of April 2015. That audit also indicates that
appellant's total child support arrears from August 2001 to April 2015,
before adjusting for payments made, were only $50,244.00, which is less
than the $57,596.27 in total arrears identified in the 2010 judgment. On
October 8, 2015, the district court entered an order concluding that while
the arrears appeared to have been miscalculated in the 2010 judgment,
appellant's challenge was time-barred under NRCP 60(b). This appeal
followed.'
Having considered the parties' arguments and the record
before this court, we conclude that appellant's motion was not time-barred
under NRCP 60(b). The district court retains inherent authority to
'Respondent initially argues that the October 2015 order is not
appealable because it merely clarified a previous order entered in April
2015, from which appellant did not timely appeal. We conclude that
respondent's argument lacks merit. See Foster v. Dingwall, 126 Nev. 49,
53 n.3, 228 P.3d 453, 456 n.3 (2010) (recognizing that an order denying
NRCP 60(b) relief is independently appealable).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A 4340
0
interpret and enforce its prior orders, which include the divorce decree and
the 2006 stipulated order. See Henson v. Henson, 130 Nev., Adv. Op. 79,
334 P.3d 933, 937 n.6 (2014) (rejecting a timeliness challenge where the
court was merely enforcing and effectuating the divorce decree and not
modifying the parties' interests therein); Kishner v. Kishner, 93 Nev. 220,
225, 562 P.2d 493, 496 (1977) (noting the court's inherent authority to
construe its judgments to remove an ambiguity). The 2010 judgment for
arrears was entered in the separate child support enforcement case for the
purpose of enforcing the support obligations arising from the district court
divorce decree and 2006 stipulated order. Yet the 2010 judgment appears
to contain a miscalculation of child support arrears. Thus, the district
court was not precluded from considering the divorce decree and the 2006
stipulated order, determining the correct amount of arrears owed, and
entering a judgment accordingly. We, therefore, reverse the district
court's order and remand this matter to the district court for further
proceedings.
It is so ORDERED.
?19A J.
Douglas
Gibbons
cc: Hon. Jennifer Elliott, District Judge, Family Court Division
Michael Schlotfeldt
Ilan Acherman
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(D) 1947A 7elso