Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
BO YANG, Appellant, v. HAIMING PAN, Respondent.
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
This is an appeal from the district court's order denying appellant Bo Yang's motion to set aside a decree of divorce pursuant to NRCP 60(b). Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Court Division, Clark County; Linda Marquis, Judge.
We review an order denying an NRCP 60(b) motion to set aside a judgment for an abuse of discretion. Rodriguez v. Fiesta Palms, LLC, 134 Nev., Adv. Op. 78, 428 P.3d 255, 257 (2018). Under NRCP 60(b), a motion to set aside based on fraud will not be considered if it is filed more than six months after the date of the proceeding or service of written notice of entry of the judgment. NRCP 60(b) (2005). An NRCP 60(b) motion to set aside on the ground that the judgment is void, however, must only be made “within a reasonable time.” Id.
The district court correctly determined that Yang's motion to set aside was filed more than six months after both the trial and service of the decree of divorce's notice of entry. Therefore, the motion was untimely as to the fraud allegation, and Yang's only basis to set aside the judgment is to argue that it was void. “For a judgment to be void, there must be a defect in the court's authority to enter judgment through either lack of personal jurisdiction or jurisdiction over subject matter in the suit.” Gossett v. Snappy Car Rental, 111 Nev. 1416, 1419, 906 P.2d 258, 261 (1995), superseded on other grounds by rule, as stated in In Re Estate of Black, 132 Nev. 73, 367 P.3d 416 (2016). We determined in Yang's previous appeal from the divorce decree that this court had personal jurisdiction over Yang and Pan, as well as subject matter jurisdiction. Yang v. Pan, Docket No. 74564 (Order Affirming in Part, Reversing in Part and Remanding, March 28, 2019). Because the district court had both personal and subject matter jurisdiction, we determine that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to set aside, as the judgment was not void. Therefore, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 77022
Decided: July 24, 2019
Court: Supreme Court of Nevada.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)