No. 69094 

FILE 

JUN 1 6 2016 

LI E?iAiN A 

*le • URI Steijit 

REIF A TV CLERK 

CLE 

BY 

MICHAEL SCHLOTFELDT, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

ALISA SCHLOTFELDT, 

Respondent. 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

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 

that the parties' 2006 stipulated order excluded the accrual of interest and 

penalties during the period of appellant's incarceration. In July 2014, the 

icp- ( g9id 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 
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 04340 
?19A 

Douglas 

J. 

Gibbons 

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. 

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