Brazell v. Brazell
Summary of the case Brazell v. Brazell
The Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed a district court's post-divorce decree order awarding $10,215.01 in attorney fees to Debra Brazell. Loren K. Brazell, the appellant, challenged the award, arguing he was unaware of a prior warning about potential fee awards for needless litigation. The district court found that Loren had filed multiple motions for the same relief previously denied and had been cautioned about such actions. The court reviewed the affidavit and billing statements submitted by Debra and applied the Brunzell factors to determine the fee award.
Key Issues of the case Brazell v. Brazell
- Award of attorney fees
- Repeated motions for same relief
Key Facts of the case Brazell v. Brazell
- Appellant filed multiple motions for the same relief
- Respondent submitted an affidavit under Brunzell factors
Decision of the case Brazell v. Brazell
Affirmed
Opinions
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
LOREN K. BRAZELL, No. 67932 Appellant, vs. DEBRA BRAZELL, FILED Respondent. JAN 15 2016 TRACE K. LINDEMAN CLERK gc SUPREME COURT
EV "-- ? 2jea EPUTY CLERK r
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE This is a pro se appeal from a district court post-divorce decree order awarding attorney fees. Second Judicial District Court, Family Court Division, Washoe County; Frances Doherty, Judge. On appeal, appellant challenges the award of $10,215.01 in attorney fees to respondent. In granting respondent's request for attorney fees, the district court reasoned that appellant had submitted multiple motions seeking the same relief that had been denied on past occasions. The court noted that it had previously cautioned the parties that “it may award fees in the future if needless litigation is necessitated by either party.” Although appellant argues that he was not aware of that admonishment until shortly after he filed his motion, the district court recognized that appellant could have withdrawn his motion or chosen not to file multiple supplemental motions thereafter. Additionally, respondent submitted an affidavit in support of the requested fees under Brunzell v. Golden Gate National Bank, 85 Nev. 345, 349-50, 455 P.2d 31, 33 (1969). The district court stated that it carefully reviewed respondent's affidavit and the attached billing statements along with appellant's reply in opposition. The district court
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA
(0) 1347A noted counsel's efforts in representing respondent throughout many portions of the litigation process, made findings as to the Brunzell factors, and determined that $10,215.01 was an appropriate award of fees. Id. at
349, 455 P.2d at 33. We have considered appellant's arguments and reviewed the record on appeal, and we conclude that appellant has not demonstrated that the district court abused its discretion in awarding the attorney fees. See Miller v. Wilfong, 121 Nev. 619, 622, 119 P.3d 727, 729 (2005) (stating that an award of attorney fees in a divorce proceeding is within the district court's sound discretion). Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 1
J. Hardesty
Saitta Pickering
cc: Hon. Frances Doherty, District Judge, Family Court Division Loren K. Brazell Debra Brazell Kelli Anne Viloria Washoe District Court Clerk
'On December 4, 2015, respondent filed a notice of substitution of counsel requesting that respondent, in pro se, be substituted in place of her attorney Kelli Anne Viloria, Esq. We construe the notice as a motion to withdraw, and we grant the motion. See NRAP 46(e)(3). The clerk of this court shall remove Kelli Ann Viloria, Esq., and the Law Offices of Kelli Anne Viloria as counsel of record for respondent.
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A ..)e