Skip to content

eighthjdcourt

Info about the Eighth Judicial District Court.

Monthly Archives: May 2015

DSC_0731
The Eighth Judicial District Court is taking action to implement best practices for guardianship cases as established by the National Association for Court Management. District Court Chief Judge David Barker recently attended an open hearing regarding guardianship at the Clark County Commission. As the chief judge, he is entrusted with the responsibility to handle matters of concern with the court. “Our fundamental responsibility to is to promote citizens trust and confidence in the guardianship process.” said Judge Barker. “I told the County Commission that I wanted to listen and I did. I continue to listen and I have also taken immediate action including establishing a guardianship hotline at 702-671-4614 and an email link guardianshipcompliance@clarkcountycourts.us for those who have concerns. “ Judge Barker sat in on guardianship cases to get a firsthand look as court officers worked. “Sitting in on guardianship cases provided valuable insight,” said Judge Barker. “As part of the fact-finding, I also spoke with those who handle these cases.”

Other action has been taken including:
• Contacting the Second Judicial District Court Chief Judge David Hardy and Nevada Supreme Court Chief Justice James Hardesty to form a high-level Guardianship Commission to review the issues and concerns expressed by the Clark County Commission.
• Contacting nationally recognized experts in guardianship for their expertise, insight and possible involvement with the commission.
• Review of significant correspondence regarding guardianship.
• Meeting with law enforcement and others in the executive branch with an eye toward cooperation that would be consistent with the judicial canons and responsive to community concerns.
• Requesting a guardianship compliance administrator and an investigator as steps to a wider strategy to address a number of important areas including:Formalizing a process for bringing complaints or concerns to the attention of the court. Implementation of a guardianship monitoring program. Promoting court/community collaboration. Developing and institutionalizing training programs for guardians and volunteers who are not professionals. Developing improved standardized procedures, forms and informational resources. Tracking and documenting the number of cases to determine and secure optimum staffing and resources.

The Guardianship Commission will examine policies and procedures currently used and provide recommendations, based on national best practices, on how they can be improved. The court appreciates the County Commission commitment to addressing this important concern and looks forward to their essential support to make the Guardianship Commission recommendations into reality. Adding a guardianship compliance administrator who is experienced in this case type will be a significant step to handling these challenges.

There are volunteer legal organizations in the community that work to assist with guardianship matters. “I ask that you support the community volunteers who are struggling but want to help,” said Judge Barker. “With calm deliberation we will allay the concerns and answer the questions asked regarding guardianship. Protecting those impacted by intellectual disabilities and diseases associated with aging is essential to the well-being of our families and community in Clark County. In cooperation with this commission, the judicial branch is actively addressing the guardianship issues raised and will pursue the best avenues and resources to develop solutions and improve the handling of guardianship cases.”

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , ,

photo
admin2
The Family Division of District Court recently issued an Administrative Order to protect the privacy and safety of children and adults involved involved in juvenile dependency cases.
http://www.clarkcountycourts.us/clerk/rules/Administrative%20Order%2015-05.pdf

Tags: , , , ,

DSC_0014

Hot topics were covered at the April Civil Bench Bar meeting including: rules against perpetuities. As a result of the Nevada Supreme Court decision on Bullion Monarch Mining, Inc. v. Barrick Goldstrike Mines, Inc., 131 Nev.Ad.Op. 13 (March 26, 2015)(7-0): Nevada’s common-law Rule Against Perpetuities (RAP) does not extend to area-of-interest royalties created by commercial mining agreements.

A recommendation was made to put on the record any discussion that occurs on breaks during depositions. That reminder comes in the wake of discussion of Nevada Supreme Court decision on Coyote Springs Investment, LLC v. District Court, 131 Nev.Ad.Op. 18 (April 2, 2015)(3-0): Petition for Writ challenged district court order requiring plaintiff’s witness to disclose substance of communications that took place between witness and plaintiff’s counsel during break in deposition. Question came up regarding whether private communication between lawyer and witness is entitled to protection from discovery under attorney-client privilege. It was noted that attorneys may confer with witnesses during requested recesses only to determine whether to assert a privilege. For attorney-client privilege to apply, counsel must state on deposition record (1) the fact a conference took place, (2) substance of conference and (3) result of conference. Plaintiff’s counsel failed to make a sufficient, contemporaneous record of privileged communication and petition denied.

Another point of interest came up regarding Nevada Supreme Court decision on Cadle Company v. Woods Erickson, 131 Nev.Ad.Op. 15 (March 26, 2015)(7-0): Nevada, like the majority of jurisdictions, does not recognize accessory liability for fraudulent transfers. District Court’s judgment in favor of the law firm affirmed. However, District Court abused discretion in awarding costs as there was insufficient evidence showing each cost was reasonable, necessary and actually incurred. The takeaway was that thorough documentation of expenses must be provided to recover costs incurred.

Also discussed: Hohenstein v. NV ESD, 131 Nev.Ad.Op 17 (April 2, 2015)(3-0): A guilty plea made per NRS 453.3363 may not be used as the basis for denying unemployment benefits. NRS 453.3363 affords certain first-time drug offenders the opportunity to avoid criminal conviction if the offender pleads guilty and then successfully completes a probationary period. Upon successfully completing probation, the offender is discharged and charges are dismissed.

Other topics of interest that came up were the potential for rules changes on the short trial program and legislative changes on small claims and Justice Court limits.

The next Civil Bench Bar meeting is May 12 at noon in courtroom 15D. The meetings are a great way to learn about rules and procedure changes, trends and other happenings at the court. They are also a way to improve civil practice by getting a judicial perspective while enjoying a complimentary lunch.

Tags: , , ,