Opinion ID: 2372843
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: A THE 1971 NEVADA DIVORCE DECREE AND CHILD SUPPORT ORDER In 1971, the plaintiff, who resided in Nevada with her three children, was granted a divorce from the defendant by a decree of the District Court of the Eighth Judicial District of the state of Nevada. The defendant, who was not a resident of Nevada at the time the proceeding commenced, did not appear to contest the action. Process was served on the defendant by publication and by the mailing of a copy of the summons and complaint to a relative of the defendant who was unaware of his whereabouts. The divorce decree and a decree ordering the defendant to pay $1000 monthly child support were entered September 17, 1971. B THE 1972 NEVADA CHILD SUPPORT ARREARAGE JUDGMENT In 1972, the plaintiff made a motion in Nevada to reduce the child support arrearages to judgment. The defendant entered a special appearance to contest the motion, arguing that the Court had no jurisdiction to enter its Order of child support and the same is void. The defendant filed an affidavit stating that he had never been personally served in the 1971 proceeding, and he also filed a memorandum of law supporting his position. Following a hearing held on March 27, 1972, the Nevada court, having heard the evidence, found that the defendant had been obligated to pay child support from the date of the 1971decree. Implicit in the court's order is a finding that the Nevada court did have jurisdiction in the 1971 action. Only by finding jurisdiction over the defendant could the court have made that order. The question of the ... validity of the order was distinctly presented by the [defendant's response] and necessarily was resolved against him by the judgment affirming the order. Omitting to mention that question in the opinion did not eliminate it from the case or make the judgment of affirmance any the less an adjudication of it. Grubb v. Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, 281 U.S. 470, 477-78, 50 S. Ct. 374, 74 L. Ed. 972 (1930); see also State v. Kallio, 92 Nev. 665, 668, 557 P.2d 705 (1976); Clark v. Clark, 80 Nev. 52, 58-59, 389 P.2d 69 (1964). The defendant did not appeal or otherwise challenge this judgment. C THE 1979 NEVADA CHILD SUPPORT ARREARAGE JUDGMENT In 1979, the plaintiff again made a motion in Nevada to reduce arrearages to judgment. While the defendant had actual notice of these proceedings, he did not appear in the 1979 action and judgment was rendered for the plaintiff. Again, the defendant did not appeal or otherwise challenge this judgment.