Family Court has no jurisdiction over property dispute of cohabiting couples.
In Landreth v. Malik, the Nevada Supreme Court held that the family courts do not have jurisdiction to hear disputes over property ownership between unmarried couples. Here, the dispute involved a claim that the funds used to purchase and renovate a home in Nevada were joint funds of a couple who had cohabited, but never married. The Court’s ruling was based on the jurisdictional grant set forth in NRS 3.223, which does not include an action of the type here.
The statute is pretty straight forward. I do question the use of the word “meretricious” to describe the relationship between the parties, however. That word is commonly used to describe an unlawful sexual relationship. Meanings do change though, so perhaps this is an example.
Also, the impact of this decision on those who register as domestic partners, remains to be seen. SB 283 expressly provided that termination of such a domestic partner relationship would follow the requirements of NRS Chapter 125, which would fall within family court jurisdiction. However, domestic partners can terminate outside of Chapter 125 if the parties meet certain qualifications. One such requirement is the lack of community property, the determination of which lack could, of course, be precisely the issue to be decided . . .
Decided December 24, 2009. Douglas authored the opinion, with Parraguirre, Cherry, and Pickering concurring.
Hardesty dissented, with Saitta and Gibbons concurring.
