Hale v. Hale

 Inc., 109 Nev. 268, 271, 849 P.2d 305, 307 (1993) (explaining that this
court will not disturb the district court's NRCP 60(b) determination absent
an abuse of discretion). The party moving for NRCP 60(b) relief bears the
burden of proof. See Kahn v. Orme, 108 Nev. 510, 513-14, 835 P.2d 790,
793 (1992), overruled on other grounds by Epstein v. Epstein, 113 Nev.
1401, 1405, 950 P.2d 771, 773 (1997). Here, substantial evidence in the
record supports the district court's conclusion that appellant did not
establish that he was incompetent either at the time he entered the
property division agreement or at the time of the divorce proceedings. See
Ogawa v. Ogawa, 125 Nev. 660, 668, 221 13 .3d 699, 704 (2009) (explaining
that district court factual findings will be upheld if not clearly erroneous
and if supported by substantial evidence).
Additionally, while appellant challenges the admissibility of
testimony by respondent's two expert witnesses and cites to procedural
deviations from NRCP 16.2(a)(3)(B) (2010) (amended 2012), these
deviations did not prejudice appellant's preparation for the hearing and,
thus, are not reversible error. NRCP 61; see also FCHI, LLC v. Rodriguez,
130 Nev. , P.3d , (Adv. Op. No. 46, October 2, 2014)
("[T]he purpose of discovery is to take the 'surprise out of trials of cases so
that all relevant facts and information pertaining to the action may be
ascertained in advance of trial." (quoting Washoe Cnty. Bd. of Sch.
Trustees v. Pirhala, 84 Nev. 1, 5, 435 P.2d 756, 758 (1968))). Moreover,
contrary to appellant's assertions, we conclude that substantial evidence
supports the district court's determination that the expert witness
testimony introduced by respondent complied with NRS 50.275, and thus,
the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the expert
testimony. See Hallmark v. Eldridge, 124 Nev. 492, 498, 189 P.3d 646,
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A .0
650 (2008) (noting that this court reviews a district court's decision to
allow expert testimony for abuse of discretion).
For the reasons discussed above, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
J.
Hardest
>#774 , J.
Douglas
aut.
Cherry
cc: Hon. T. Arthur Ritchie, Jr., District Judge, Family Court Division
Moran Law Firm, LLC
E. Brent Bryson
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A ,ze9A.