Supreme Court rules on authority of family court

By Steve Kanigher

Friday, May 13, 2011 | 2:49 p.m.

A divided Nevada Supreme Court ruled Thursday in a dispute involving an unmarried Las Vegas couple that a district court judge sitting in family court has authority to dispose of a case even if it involves subject matters outside the family court's jurisdiction.

In the 4-3 decision, based on an appeal by Dlynn Landreth against Amit Malik, the court declared that the state Legislature doesn't have the constitutional authority to limit the powers of a district judge in family court even though legislators established the jurisdiction of family courts.

Justice James Hardesty, writing for the majority, stated that "all judges in the family court division are district court judges with authority to preside over matters outside the family court division's jurisdiction."

The court also ruled, though, that Clark County District Court abused its discretion in a default judgment that favored Malik and ordered that judgment reversed. That judgment was handed down by former family court Judge Nicholas Anthony Del Vecchio.

According to court records, Landreth and Malik split up in 2004 after living together in three other states, at which point Landreth moved to Las Vegas. She claims to have used her own money for down payment on a house and paid to have it upgraded. Malik followed her to Las Vegas and the couple reunited before breaking up again in 2005.

Malik claimed that the money to purchase and upgrade the house came from their joint checking account. In 2006, he made demands through district court for half the equity in the home, half of certain property acquired during their relationship and all of his separate personal property.

Landreth, who had moved to the Caribbean, claimed she had difficulty contacting her lawyer, which led Malik to grant her extensions of time to file an answer to his complaint. Malik, though, eventually applied for and received a default judgment in 2007 but Landreth sought to have the default set aside. She argued that his attorney improperly failed to notify her attorney of Malik's application for a default after granting her more time to file an answer to his original complaint.

In May 2007 the family court denied her motion to set aside the default. The court found that Malik gave her numerous opportunities to answer, but that her delay warranted the default judgment. The family court judge also concluded that the money for the home came from the couple's joint account.

Landreth claimed that the family court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case because the couple wasn't married and didn't have any children and the dispute was simply over property. The Supreme Court majority ruled that Del Vecchio had the authority to consider Malik's complaint because he had all the powers of a district court judge. But the high court reversed the default judgment because Malik didn't serve Landreth with proper notice of his intent to seek default after granting her additional extensions to file an answer.

Joining Hardesty in the majority were Justices Nancy Saitta, Mark Gibbons and Ron Parraguirre. Dissenting were Chief Justice Michael Douglas and Justices Kristina Pickering and Michael Cherry.