Opinion ID: 2543606
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Wrongful removal

Text: Having concluded that the children's habitual residence was Norway, we must next determine whether Scotlund wrongfully removed the children from that country. Under the Hague Convention, removal or retention of a child is wrongful if it violates the custody rights of another person which were actually being exercised at the time of the removal or retention or would have been exercised but for the removal or retention. [47] In the underlying case, the district court concluded that it need not make a Hague Convention determination because Scotlund had not wrongfully removed the children from Norway. Instead, the district court found that Cisilie had wrongfully retained the children in Norway contrary to their agreement. The district court's determination that Scotlund had not wrongfully removed the children from Norway was improper. Scotlund arrived in Norway with an order from the district court finding Cisilie in contempt for violating the terms of the Nevada divorce decree. Specifically, the district court had determined that Cisilie was violating the parties' agreement, which had been incorporated into the terms of the divorce decree and which required her to return the children to Scotlund. Accordingly, the district court granted Scotlund custody of the children. The district court, however, relied upon Scotlund's untruthful representation when it issued its order granting him custody of the children. At the hearing held to decide whether Cisilie was in contempt of court for failing to bring the children to the United States as contemplated by the parties' agreement, the district court asked Scotlund how long he and the children had lived in Nevada. Scotlund responded that they had lived in Nevada all their lives. The district court then issued its order holding Cisilie in contempt. This order further stated that Cisilie was to immediately return the children to Scotlund's custody. Had the district court been apprised of the true facts, the order compelling Cisilie to return the children to Scotlund's custody might not have been granted. Moreover, the underlying basis for the order, the provision in the divorce decree incorporating the parties' agreement as to custody and visitation, is void and unenforceable. Accordingly, when Scotlund traveled to Norway to take custody of the children, he did so under an invalid order. Further, Cisilie was properly exercising custody rights over the children when Scotlund arrived in Norway. Because Scotlund removed the children from their habitual residence while Cisilie was validly exercising custody rights over the children, and because he removed the children under the false pretense of a valid custody order, Scotlund wrongfully removed the children from Norway. Under the terms of the Hague Convention, the children must be returned to Norway so that any decision regarding custody can be made in the courts of that country. [48]
In this case, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over custody and visitation. Furthermore, the district court manifestly abused its discretion by failing to make a determination under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction regarding the children's state of habitual residence. As the children's state of habitual residence was, as a matter of law, Norway, and as Scotlund wrongfully removed the children from that country, the district court was required to make these determinations. Accordingly, we grant the petition and direct the clerk of this court to issue a writ of mandamus compelling the district court to vacate those portions of its decree relating to custody and visitation and to order the children's return to Norway, where custody determinations can be made. ROSE, LEAVITT and BECKER JJ., concur. MAUPIN, C.J., dissenting. I would grant the petition and declare the voidable divorce decree void in its entirety. In granting the petition, I would further conclude that the district court was not authorized to grant relief under NRS 125A.050, nor was it authorized to make findings under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. It is true that petitioner judicially admitted the facts alleged in the original divorce complaint in support of the real party in interest's residency, and thus the primary fact in support of subject matter jurisdiction over the marriage and the issues related thereto. The majority now concludes that this admission constitutes a judicial estoppel, which relieves the district court, and therefore this court, from the obligation to declare as void, in its entirety, the admittedly voidable divorce decree. I disagree. Once the facts of voidability became known, it was incumbent on the district court to void the decree for want of subject matter jurisdiction. As the majority points out, actions of the parties cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction on a court when none otherwise exists. Application of the doctrine of judicial estoppel to these facts would do just that. Since the district court determined that it did have jurisdiction, it is incumbent upon this court to now declare the underlying decree void in its entirety. [1] The majority's reliance on our published opinion in Sterling Builders, Inc. v. Fuhrman [2] is misplaced. This is because our application of judicial estoppel in Sterling had nothing to do with subject matter jurisdiction. Sterling merely applied the rule of estoppel to prevent a party from denying that a partnership existed in the context of a factual dispute. [3] The Sterling decision did not apply the doctrine of judicial estoppel to confer jurisdiction where there was none, and we should not do so now. The estoppel argument was not sufficient to give any continuing life to the decree. I realize that, under this view, there would be collateral effects on these parties with regard to their post-decree actions and their status as divorced persons. This is particularly unfortunate with regard to petitioner who, at the very least, was a victim of the post-divorce behavior of the real party in interest. This does not, however, alter the fact that the decree was actually voidable in all respects and should be so declared. No other remedies are available to petitioner under Nevada law. NRS 125A.050, the Nevada version of the UCCJA, cannot provide relief since Nevada is neither the home state of the children of the parties, nor was it their home state at any time. In point of fact, these children have never had any significant connection with the state. It therefore appears that the district court was seriously misled in its deliberations below, given the real party in interest's statement that the children had lived in Nevada all their lives. The district court also does not have jurisdiction to make findings under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. This is because actions under the Convention must be made in a court which has jurisdiction of such action[s] and which is authorized to exercise its jurisdiction in the place where the child is located at the time the petition is filed. [4] YOUNG, J., with whom SHEARING, J., agrees, dissenting: I disagree with the majority's conclusion that the decree of divorce is voidable, not void; and I also disagree with the majority that Cisilie is judicially estopped from questioning the decree obtained through Scotlund's fraud.
In the majority opinion, my colleagues hold that the decree fraudulently obtained by Scotlund without establishing residency is voidable, not void. This holding is contrary to long-established law in this state and undermines Nevada's statutory scheme requiring a six-week residency. For many years, it has been well settled that a divorce decree issued by a district court without jurisdiction is void. [1] Here, the majority relies on Smith v. Smith [2] where the plaintiff's good faith failure to properly serve the defendant constituted a procedural irregularity rendering the judgment merely voidable, not void. Smith is factually distinguishable from the instant case because in that case there was no fraud, merely a procedural irregularity. The plaintiff in Smith established residency for the requisite period in Nevada; the testimony of the resident witness was not flawed. A default had been taken after thirteen days from service of process instead of the requisite twenty days. In contrast, here, Scotlund did not attempt to comply with Nevada law requiring six-week residency. Scotlund had resided in Nevada only five days when he signed the complaint. Thus, this case does not involve a mere procedural irregularity as in Smith. The majority's reliance on Smith is misplaced because here the district court clearly lacked jurisdiction and the decree of divorce was void. [3] Additionally, the majority relies on Moore v. Moore . [4] In Moore, the husband obtained a decree of divorce after he had physically resided in Nevada for more than six weeks. [5] Later, the husband and wife sought to void the decree saying that although the husband had been physically present in Nevada and contrary to his testimony in court, he really had not intended to make Nevada his residence. [6] To determine whether the decree of divorce was void or voidable, we reviewed the manner in which the trial court had exercised its authority to resolve the factual problem confronting it [the issue of residency]. [7] Specifically, we noted that a decree is void when there is `a total defect of evidence to prove the essential fact, and the court find[s] it without proof.' [8] Under such circumstances, `the court acts without authority, and the action of the court is void.' [9] In Moore, the husband's testimony that he had been a bona fide resident in Nevada for more than six weeks was sufficient to make the decree of divorce merely voidable. [10] In contrast, the facts before this court indicate that there was a total defect of evidence proving that Scotlund was a resident of Nevada. Three facts are significant. First, the majority admits that Scotlund's statement concerning residency in the verified complaint was false. In fact, when the complaint was signed, Scotlund had been in the state for a period of only five days. Second, the affidavit of the resident witness did not corroborate Scotlund's claim of residency by clear and convincing evidence as required by law. [11] The affidavit was cleverly worded to indicate that the affiant had known Scotlund for six weeksbut not during the six weeks he was claiming residency in Nevada. The affiant further stated that she had seen Scotlund physically present in Nevada on an average of 3-4 times weekly. It was signed when Scotlund had been in Nevada only six days, not for a period of six weeks. Third, the district court entered the decree in chambers without a hearing. At the time the decree was signed, Scotlund was thousands of miles away in England. It is abundantly clear that Scotlund had not established a residence in Nevada at the time the complaint was filed sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the district court to grant a divorce. Unlike Moore, there was a total defect in the evidence presented to the district court. Hence, based on the lack of residency, the decree of divorce is void, not merely voidable. Adopting the majority's view would undermine Nevada's statutory scheme requiring a six-week residency. A non-resident plaintiff seeking an expedient divorce could travel to Nevada, file a complaint the same day, and obtain a decree of divorce immediately. The problem with holding that such a decree is voidable, as we are urged to do in the majority opinion, is that individuals could commit fraud upon our courts and reap the dubious benefits of a voidable divorce decree, which is what Scotlund is doing here.
Scotlund attempts to breathe life into a void decree by alleging that Cisilie is judicially estopped to question the validity of the void decree. If we hold the decree of divorce to be void, we need not reach the question of whether Cisilie is judicially estopped. However, since the majority reached this question, I feel obliged to convey my concerns about the application of judicial estoppel under the circumstances before this court. The United States Supreme Court has stated that judicial estoppel is designed to `protect the integrity of the judicial process' [12] in order to `prohibit[ ] parties from deliberately changing positions according to the exigencies of the moment.' [13] It follows that the doctrine of judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine applied by a court at its discretion. [14] In this case, I submit the district court erred by finding that Cisilie was not coerced or operating under duress when she signed the answer (prepared by Scotlund's Nevada divorce attorney) admitting to Scotlund's claim of residency. [15] The record shows that Scotlund had threatened Cisilie that he would take the couple's children away from her if she did not cooperate with the divorce. [16] It was a threat that was later carried out when Scotlund kidnapped the children in Norway by trickery and deceit and flew to the United States. The district court abused its discretion by invoking the doctrine of judicial estoppel against Cisilie. Moreover, a court has discretion not to apply judicial estoppel when `a party's prior position was based on inadvertence or mistake.' [17] In this case, Cisilie is not judicially estopped because there is no evidence to suggest that she was aware of Nevada's residency requirement. In fact, she had never resided in Nevada. The answer that she signed was prepared by her husband's attorney in Nevada and sent by airmail to her in Norway for immediate signature. She had planned on remarriage; but when an attorney in Norway advised her that there might be some doubt as to the validity of the Nevada decree, Cisilie cancelled the marriage ceremony. She has spent thousands of dollars in fees and travel expenses in an effort to set aside the admittedly fraudulent decree and will presumably have to spend thousands of additional dollars to regain custody of her children illegally taken from her in Norway by Scotlund. Thus, the district court incorrectly applied the doctrine of judicial estoppel because Cisilie's admission to Scotlund's claim of residency was not knowingly made and certainly not a representation that Scotlund could rely on to prove his residency under Nevada law or prevent her from questioning the residency requirement. Finally, we have stated that the `purpose of the doctrine of judicial estoppel is to suppress fraud ... and to eliminate the prejudice that would result to the administration of justice if a litigant were to swear one way one time and a different way another time.' [18] In this case, invoking judicial estoppel against Cisilie protects Scotlund from the consequences of his fraud upon the district court and inhibits the administration of justice. Scotlund was the sole architect of the scheme to perpetrate fraud on the district court. He should not be allowed to harvest the benefits of such fraud. Our court should not close the doors of justice to the innocent and reward the wrongdoer in the name of judicial estoppel.
I am disturbed about the conduct of Scotlund's divorce attorney in this case. The attorney prepared a complaint that falsely alleged Scotlund's residency in Nevada. The divorce attorney knew or should have known that Scotlund had not been a resident of Nevada for six weeks when he signed the complaint. [19] Further, the affidavit signed by the resident witness was cleverly drafted by the divorce attorney in a misleading manner in an effort to corroborate residency.