Miller v. Wilfong (2005)

The Miller Court found that in family law disputes, "one partner has often created or contributed to the other partner's limited financial means" and that in those cases, "if fees are not awarded to pro bono counsel, a wealthier litigant would benefit from creating conditions that force the other party to seek legal aid." Id. at 729-30.

Additionally, the district court noted that it had considered the disparity in income of the parties, and Amber's Brunzelln brief, which the district court specifically requested before ruling on attorney fees.12 See Miller v. Wilfong, 121 Nev. 619, 623 , 119 P.3d 727, 730 (2005) (clarifying what a district court must consider when a party represented by pro bono counsel seeks attorney fees, and further explaining the policy reasoning behind permitting pro bono counsel to re…

Additionally, the district court noted that it had considered the disparity in income of the parties, and Amber's Brunzelln brief, which the district court specifically requested before ruling on attorney fees.12 See Miller v. Wilfong, 121 Nev. 619, 623 , 119 P.3d 727, 730 (2005) (clarifying what a district court must consider when a party represented by pro bona counsel seeks attorney fees, and further explaining the policy reasoning behind permitting pro bono counsel to re…

Id. at 266, 350 P.3d at 1143 (reviewing an attorney fee award for an abuse of discretion); Miller v. Wilfong, 121 Nev. 619, 623 , 119 P.3d 727, 730 (2005) (providing that "the court must evaluate the factors set forth in Brunzelr when exercising its discretion to determine a reasonable amount of attorney fees to award under a statute); see also Beattie v. Thomas, 99 Nev. 579, 589 , 668 P.2d 268, 274 (1983) (concluding that a district court abuses its discretion if it awards …

We also reject Ali's contention that the district court improperly evaluated the parties' disparity in income when considering the issue, as the district coures order makes clear that it considered the information provided in• both Ali's and Kizzy's most recent financial disclosure forms when making its decision.12 See Miller v. Wilfong, 121 Nev. 619, 623-24, 119 P.3d 727, 730 (2005) (requiring the district court to "consider the disparity in income of the parties when award…

We also reject Ali's contention that the district court improperly evaluated the parties' disparity in income when considering the issue, as the district court's order makes clear that it considered the information provided in both Ali's and Kizzy's most recent financial disclosure forms when making its decision.i2 See Miller v. Wilfong, 121 Nev. 619, 623-24, 119 P.3d 727, 730 (2005) (requiring the district court to "consider the disparity in income of the parties when award…

Id. at 266, 350 P.3d at 1143 (reviewing an attorney fee award for an abuse of discretion); Miller v. Wilfong, 121 Nev. 619, 623 , 119 P.3d 727, 730 (2005) (providing that "the court must evaluate the factors set forth in Brunzelr when exercising its discretion to determine a reasonable amount of attorney fees to award under a statute); see also Beattie v. Thomas, 99 Nev. 579, 589 , 668 P.2d 268, 274 (1983) (concluding that a district court abuses its discretion if it awards …

NRS 159.183(1) (noting that payment of attorney fees in guardianship cases is subject to discretion and approval of the court); Miller v. Wilfong, 121 Nev. 619, 622 , 119 P.3d 727, 729 (2005).

Thus, we conclude the district court abused its discretion in ordering appellant to pay $500 in attorney fees to respondent, see Miller, 121 Nev. at 729 , 119 P.3d at 622 (explaining that this court reviews an attorney fees award for an abuse of discretion), and we reverse that award.

Miller v. Wilfong, 121 Nev. 619, 622 , 119 P.3d 727, 729 (2005).

Miller v. Wilfong, 121 Nev. 619, 622 , 119 P.3d 727, 729 (2005).

We also reject Ali's contention that the district court improperly evaluated the parties' disparity in income when considering the issue, as the district court's order makes clear that it considered the information provided in both Ali's and Kizzy's most recent financial disclosure forms when making its decision.i2 See Miller v. Wilfong, 121 Nev. 619, 623-24 , 119 P.3d 727, 730 (2005) (requiring the district court to "consider the disparity in income of the parties when awar…

NRS 159.183(1) (noting that payment of attorney fees in guardianship cases is subject to discretion and approval of the court); Miller v. Wilfong, 121 Nev. 619, 622 , 119 P.3d 727, 729 (2005).

While the district court has discretion to award reasonable attorney fees, "in exercising that discretion, the court must evaluate the factors set forth in Brunzell v. Golden Gate National Bank." Miller v. Wilfong, 121 Nev. 619, 623 , 119 P.3d 727, 730 (2005) (citing Brunzell v. Golden Gate Nat'l Bank, 85 Nev. 345, 349 , 455 P.2d 31, 33 (1969)).

Miller v. Wilfong, 121 Nev. 619, 622 , 119 P.3d 727, 729 (2005).

Miller v. Wilfong, 121 Nev. 619, 622 , 119 P.3d 727, 729 (2005) (providing that this court reviews the district court's decision regarding attorney fees for an abuse of discretion).

Miller v. Wilfong, 121 Nev. 619, 622 , 119 P.3d 727, 729 (2005) (explaining that this court reviews an award of attorney fees for an abuse of discretion).

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A .435:o under NRS 126.171. 3 See NRS 18.010(2)(b) (permitting an award of attorney fees to the prevailing party only when a claim or defense is "brought or maintained without reasonable ground or to harass the prevailing party"); Miller v. Wilfong, 121 Nev. 619, 623 , 119 P.3d 727, 730 (2005) (providing that in family law cases, the district court must consider the disparity in income between the parties and explaining that this court revie…

Miller v. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A e 10-32,99 Wilfong, 121 Nev. 619, 622 , 119 P.3d 727, 729 (2005) (explaining that this court reviews an award of attorney fees for an abuse of discretion).

See, e.g., Henriquez v. Henriquez, 413 Md. 287 , 992 A.2d 446, 455-56 (2010); Miller v. Wilfong, 121 Nev. 619 , 119 P.3d 727, 729 (2005); Pearson v. Pearson 200 W.Va. 139 , 488 S.E.2d 414, 424-26 (1997); In re Marriage of Ward, 3 Cal.App.4th 618 , 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 365, 368-70 (1992); In re Marriage of Swink, 807 P.2d 1245, 1248 (Colo.Ct.App.1991); Lee v. Green, 574 A.2d 857, 859-60 (Del.1990); Hale v. Hale, 772 S.W.2d 628, 630 (Ky.1989).

Miller v. Wilfong, 121 Nev. 619, 622 , 119 P.3d 727, 729 (2005).

See NRS 125.150(3) (giving the district court authority to grant attorney fees in divorce proceedings); Miller v. Wilfong, 121 Nev. 619, 624-25 , 119 P.3d 727, 731 (2005) (finding attorney . . continued provided in the record on appeal is presumed to support the district court's decision.

Miller v. Wilfong, 121 Nev. 619, 623-24 , 119 P.3d 727, 730 (2005) (holding that a district court must evaluate the Brunzell factors when awarding attorney fees).

In determining that attorneys’ fees in a divorce proceeding “may be awarded to a party who received free legal aid services or pro bono legal representation,” the court concluded that “such an award is to compensate and reimburse for legal services rendered and shall not be paid to the litigant.” Id. at 426; see also Benavides v. Benavides, 11 Conn.App. 150 , 526 A.2d 536 , 539 n. 2 (1987) (reasoning that “[t]o avoid a windfall to the plaintiff, the award of attorney’s fees …

See Ward, 3 Cal.App.4th at 624 , 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 365 ; In re Marriage of Swink, 807 P.2d 1245, 1248 (Colo.Ct.App.1991); Benavides, 526 A.2d at 538 ; Lee v. Green, 574 A.2d 857, 860 (Del.1990); Brockett, 85 Ill.Dec. 794 , 474 N.E.2d at 756 ; Hale v. Hale, 772 S.W.2d 628, 630 (Ky.1989); Gaddis, 632 S.W.2d at 329 ; Malquist, 880 P.2d at *486 1362-63; Miller v. Wilfong, 121 Nev. 619 , 119 P.3d 727, 730 (2005); Ferrigno v. Ferrigno, 115 N.J.Super. 283 , 279 A.2d 141, 142 (1971).

Since we remand for further findings regarding child custody and child support, we need not reach the issues regarding discovery of Mr. Rivero's employment records or the evidentiary hearing. [44] Goldman v. Bryan, 104 Nev. 644, 649 , 764 P.2d 1296, 1299 (1988), abrogated on other grounds by Halverson v. Hardcastle, 123 Nev. ___ , ___, 163 P.3d 428, 442-43 (2007). [45] Id. at 649, 764 P.2d at 1299 . [46] NRS 1.230(1). [47] In re Petition to Recall Dunleavy, 104 Nev. 784, 790…

As those jurisdictions thereby recognize the potential reasonableness of contingency fee amounts, and since, in Nevada, the district court is already required to consider certain factors when determining reasonableness, we see no reason to require one approach over another. 100 85 Nev. 345, 349 , 455 P.2d 31, 33 (1969) (recognizing that the factors relevant to determining the reasonableness of an attorney fee award include: “(1) the qualities of the advocate: his ability, hi…

See Miller v. Wilfong, 121 Nev. 619, 622, 119 P.3d 727, 729 (2005) (stating "an award 5 of attorney fees in divorce proceedings will not be overturned on appeal unless there is an abuse of discretion by the district court").

See Miller v. Wilfong, 121 Nev. 619, 622, 119 P.3d 727, 729 (2005).

See Miller v. Wilfong, 121 Nev. 619, 622-23 , 119 P.3d 727 , 729- 30 (2005) (discussing the public policy rationale in support of awarding attorney fees to pro bono counsel and concluding that such awards are proper); Black v. Brooks, 827 N.W2d 256, 265 (Neb. 2013) (concluding that if organizations are not awarded for recovery of statutory fees, they may COURT OF APPEALS OF NEVADA (0) 19478 15 decline to represent pro bono cases); see, e.g., New Jerseyans for a Death Penalty…

See Miller v. Wilfong, 121 Nev. 619, 622 , 119 P.3d 727, 729 (2005).

See Griffith, 132 Nev. at 395, 373 P.3d at 89. "[Ain award of attorney fees in divorce proceedings will not be overturned on appeal unless there is an abuse of discretion by the district court." Miller v. Wilfong, 121 Nev. 619, 622 , 119 P.3d 727, 729 (2005).

See generally Miller v. Wilfong, 121 Nev. 619, 622-23 , 119 P.3d 727, 730 (2005) (affirming an attorney fee award to pro bono counsel in a child custody action and discussing generally the public policy rationales underpinning attorney fee awards in various contexts).

See , Miller v. Wilfong , 121 Nev. 619 , 119 P.3d 727 .

See Miller v. Wilfong, 121 Nev. 619, 623 , 119 P.3d 727, 730 (2005) (requiring the district court to consider the Brunzell factors when awarding attorney fees).

See Miller v. Wilfong, 121 Nev. 619, 623 , 119 P.3d 727, 730 (2005) (requiring the district court to consider the Brunzell factors when awarding attorney fees).

See Miller v. Wilfong, 121 Nev. 619 , 622-23, 119 P.3d 727 , 729-30 (2005) (discussing the public policy rationale in support of awarding attorney fees to pro bono counsel and concluding that such awards are proper); *672 Black v. Brooks, 285 Neb. 440 , 827 N.W.2d 256 , 265 (2013) (concluding that if organizations are not awarded for recovery of statutory fees, they may decline to represent pro bono cases); see, e.g., New Jerseyans for a Death Penalty Moratorium v. N.J.

See Miller v. Wilfong, 121 Nev. 619, 622-23 , 119 P.3d 727 , 729- 30 (2005) (discussing the public policy rationale in support of awarding attorney fees to pro bono counsel and concluding that such awards are proper); Black v. Brooks, 827 N.W2d 256, 265 (Neb. 2013) (concluding that if organizations are not awarded for recovery of statutory fees, they may COURT OF APPEALS OF NEVADA (0) 19478 15 decline to represent pro bono cases); see, e.g., New Jerseyans for a Death Penalty…

See Miller v. Wilfong, 121 Nev. 619, 622-23 , 119 P.3d 727 , 729- 30 (2005) (discussing the public policy rationale in support of awarding attorney fees to pro bono counsel and concluding that such awards are proper); Black v. Brooks, 827 N.W2d 256, 265 (Neb. 2013) (concluding that if organizations are not awarded for recovery of statutory fees, they may COURT OF APPEALS OF NEVADA (0) 19478 15 decline to represent pro bono cases); see, e.g., New Jerseyans for a Death Penalty…

See Miller v. Wilfong, 121 Nev. 619, 622-23 , 119 P.3d 727 , 729- 30 (2005) (discussing the public policy rationale in support of awarding attorney fees to pro bono counsel and concluding that such awards are proper); Black v. Brooks, 827 N.W2d 256, 265 (Neb. 2013) (concluding that if organizations are not awarded for recovery of statutory fees, they may COURT OF APPEALS OF NEVADA (0) 19478 15 decline to represent pro bono cases); see, e.g., New Jerseyans for a Death Penalty…

See Miller v. Wilfong, 121 Nev. 619, 622 , 119 P.3d 727, 729 (2005) (stating "an award 5 of attorney fees in divorce proceedings will not be overturned on appeal unless there is an abuse of discretion by the district court").

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).

See Miller v. Wilfong, 121 Nev. 619, 622 , 119 P.3d 727, 729 (2005) (explaining that this court reviews the district court's decision regarding attorney fees for an abuse of discretion).

See Miller v. Wilfong, 121 Nev. 619, 623-24 , 119 P.3d 727, 730 (2005) (providing that in family law cases, parties seeking fees must support the request with affidavits addressing the reasonableness of the fees).

See Miller v. Wilfong, 121 Nev. 619, 622 , 119 P.3d 727, 729 (2005) (providing that a district court's award of attorney fees is reviewed for an abuse of discretion).

See Love v. Love, 114 Nev. 572, 581-82 , 959 P.2d 523, 529 (1998) (recognizing the district court's discretion to award fees and costs in post-divorce decree orders); see also Miller v. Wilfong, 121 Nev. 619, 622 , 119 P.3d 727, 729 (2005) (explaining that a district court's decision as to attorney fees in divorce proceedings is reviewed for an abuse of discretion).

See Miller v. Wilfong, 121 Nev. 619, 623 , 119 P.3d 727, 730 (2005) (providing that this court reviews an award of attorney fees for an abuse of discretion).

See, e.g., Miller v. Wilfong, 119 P.3d 727, 730 (Nev. 2005); 3 see also N.R.C.P. 54(d)(2)(B).