Davidson v. Davidson

382 P.3d 880

132 Nev. Adv. Op. 71

Dawnette R. Davidson, Appellant,

v.Christopher B. Davidson, Respondent.

No. 67698

Supreme Court of Nevada.

FILED SEPTEMBER 29, 2016

Mills, Mills & Anderson and Gregory S. Mills and Daniel W. Anderson, Las Vegas, for Appellant.

Hofland & Tomsheck and Bradley J. Hofland, Las Vegas, for Respondent.

BEFORE THE COURT EN BANC.¹

OPINION

By the Court, CHERRY, J.:

Nevada's statute of limitations for actions on judgments, NRS 11.190(1)(a), provides that an action to enforce the provisions of a judgment or decree from any state or federal court be commenced within six years. NRS 11.200 dictates that the limitations period commences “from the last transaction or the last item charged or last credit given.” In the underlying district court action, appellant Dawnette Davidson moved the family division of the district court to enforce a term of the parties' decree of divorce, which required her ex-husband, respondent Christopher Davidson, to pay Dawnette one-half of the equity in the marital home according to a 2006 appraisal in exchange for Dawnette quitclaiming the residence to Christopher. Dawnette commenced this action more than six years after she delivered the quitclaim deed. According to Dawnette, her motion was timely because NRS 125.240 allows the family division of the district court to enforce its decrees without time limitations. She also asserts that her motion was timely because the parties resided together in the marital home until 2011 and it was unreasonable for her to pursue payment from Christopher while she enjoyed the benefits of the residence.

We conclude that the Nevada Legislature did not grant the family divisions of the district courts the authority to endlessly enforce divorce decrees except where the Legislature specifically provided for enforcement regardless of the age of the claim, see , e.g., NRS 125B.050 (allowing enforcement of a child support order without a time limitation for commencing the action). We also conclude that the accrual time for the limitations period in an action on a divorce decree commences “from the last transaction or the last item charged or last credit given.” See NRS 11.200. Here, the last transaction occurred in 2006, when Dawnette delivered the quitclaim deed to Christopher. As Dawnette delivered the quitclaim deed more than six years before she moved the family division of the district court to enforce the decree, her claim is time-barred.

FACTS

The district court granted Christopher and Dawnette a decree of divorce in 2006. Their decree required Dawnette to execute a quitclaim deed and release all of her rights in the marital residence. In exchange, the decree required Christopher to pay one-half of the equity in the residence, according to the appraised value in 2006, to Dawnette. Approximately two weeks after the parties divorced, they reconciled and cohabitated in the marital residence until 2011. They never remarried. The parties agree that Dawnette executed the quitclaim deed, and Christopher claims that he refinanced the property and paid half of the equity to Dawnette. However, Dawnette denies that Christopher ever made payment.

In 2014, Dawnette filed a motion to enforce the decree, claiming that she never received her half of the equity in the property. Christopher opposed the motion, arguing that he had previously paid Dawnette her half of the equity. He also argued that the statute of limitations barred Dawnette's claim. In response, Dawnette argued that the statute of limitations had not yet begun to run because the decree did not provide a date by which Christopher was required to tender payment to her. Without deciding whether Christopher paid Dawnette, the district court denied Dawnette's motion. The court concluded that an action to enforce a decree of divorce must be commenced within six years pursuant to NRS 11.190(1)(a) and that Dawnette's claim was therefore untimely.

On appeal, Dawnette argues that (1) the district court erred when it ruled that NRS 11.190(1)(a) barred her action to enforce the decree because NRS 125.240, not NRS 11.190(1)(a), applies to motions to enforce a decree of divorce; and (2) even if NRS 11.190(1)(a) does apply, the statute of limitations had not expired because accrual of the statute of limitations does not begin until demand for performance is made or a reasonable amount of time has passed. Christopher argues that the district court's order denying her motion is not appealable and that the district court correctly ruled that the statute of limitations for Dawnette's claim had passed.

DISCUSSION

Whether this court has jurisdiction to consider Dawnette's appeal

In his answering brief, Christopher argues that no statute or court rule allows this court to review an order denying a motion for enforcement of a judgment. He asserts that although NRAP 3A(b)(8) allows an appeal from an order after final judgment, the order, to be reviewable, must impact a party's rights based on a previous judgment. He asserts that the order at issue interprets the parties' previous decree, but the order does not amend the decree or alter the parties' rights under it. In her reply, Dawnette argues that the district court's order denying her motion is appealable pursuant to NRAP 3A(b)(8) because it impacts her right to one-half of the equity in the marital residence, as set forth in the decree of divorce. We agree with Dawnette.

NRAP 3A(b)(8) allows an appeal from any “special order entered after final judgment.” In Gumm v. Mainor , 118 Nev. 912, 914, 59 P.3d 1220, 1221 (2002), this court held that, “to be appealable ..., a special order made after final judgment must be an order affecting the rights of some party to the action, growing out of the judgment previously entered.”

In the instant case, Dawnette appeals from the district court's decision and order, which denied her motion to enforce the parties' decree of divorce. The decree of divorce was the final judgment. It adjudicated all of the parties' rights regarding child custody and support, spousal support, and the division of property. See Gumm , 118 Nev. at 916, 59 P.3d at 1223. In her motion, Dawnette sought to enforce her right to receive half of the equity in the marital residence, according to the 2006 appraisal value. Her right to receive these funds was established by the decree. Accordingly, the order from which Dawnette appeals is a “special order entered after final judgment,” see NRAP 3A(b)(8), because the order denied her claim for one-half of the equity in the property and thus affects Dawnette's rights “growing out of the judgment previously entered,” see Gumm , 118 Nev. at 914, 59 P.3d at 1221. Therefore, this court has jurisdiction to consider the instant appeal.

Whether the family division of the district court may enforce its decrees without time limitations

Notwithstanding NRS 11.190(1)(a), Dawnette argues that NRS 125.240 gives the district court plenary power to enforce a decree of divorce any time after it is entered. She claims that because NRS 11.190(1)(a) and NRS 125.240 conflict with each other, this court must give NRS 125.240 priority over NRS 11.190(1)(a). Christopher asserts that all courts have continuing jurisdiction to enforce their decrees. But, he maintains, continuing jurisdiction does not ify the statute of limitations and grant a court perpetual authority. We agree with Christopher.

We review questions of statutory construction de novo. I. Cox Constr. Co. v. CH2 Invs., LLC, 129 Nev. 139, 142, 296 P.3d 1202, 1203 (2013). This court's goal in construing statutes is to uphold the intent of the Legislature and harmonize the statutes, if possible.

Our task is to ascertain the intent of those who enacted the provisions at issue, and to adopt an interpretation that best captures their objective. We must give words their plain meaning unless doing so would violate the spirit of the provision. Whenever possible, we construe provisions so that they are in harmony with each other. Specific provisions take precedence over general provisions.

Guinn v. Legislature of State of Nev., 119 Nev. 277, 285, 71 P.3d 1269, 1274–75 (2003), overruled on other grounds by Nevadans for Nev. v. Beers, 122 Nev. 930, 142 P.3d 339 (2006).

Dawnette's argument that NRS 125.240 allows the family division of the district court to enforce its decrees and judgments without any time limitations is unavailing. NRS 125.240 applies to actions for separate maintenance. However, the parties' action in this case was one for divorce, see NRS 125.010 to 125.185, not separate maintenance, see NRS 125.190 to 125.280. NRS 125.250 states that “[i]n all cases commenced under NRS 125.190 to 125.280, inclusive, the proceedings and practice must be the same, as nearly as may be, as those provided in actions for divorce.” Although the proceedings in a separate maintenance case must mirror divorce proceedings as much as possible, this court has never held that the reverse is also true, and we decline to do so today. Accordingly, even if NRS 125.240 allowed the family division to enforce its orders in separate maintenance actions without any time limitations, the statute does not apply to the instant matter, which concerns a decree of divorce.

Additionally, if the Nevada Legislature intended to eliminate the statute of limitations for enforcement of all family division orders, it would have specifically given the district courts such authority. This is evidenced by another statute applying to the enforcement of family division orders. In NRS 125B.050, the Legislature specifically invested the district courts with the authority to enforce child support orders regardless of the age of the claim:

3. If a court has issued an order for the support of a child, there is no limitation on the time in which an action may be commenced to:

(a) Collect arrearages in the amount of that support; or

(b) Seek reimbursement of money paid as public assistance for that child.

(Emphasis added.) The...