Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 08-19-2024
Case Style:
Jose Enrique Valles Favela v. Isaura Lizette Valles Jimenez
Case Number:
Judge: Nadin Cutter
Court: Eight Judicial District Court, Family Division, Clark County, Nevada
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney:
Description:
Las Vegas, Nevada family law lawyers represented the Plaintiff and defendant in a divorce action.
Jose and Isaura Lizette Valles Jimenez were married in Mexico in 1999. The parties share four minor children and two adult children. In July 2020, Jose initiated divorce proceedings. In December 2020, following a hearing, the district court ordered Jose to pay $800 per month in child support retroactive to when he left the marital home and $7,500 per month in spousal support, although the spousal support award was stayed pending trial. Following further litigation primarily pertaining to Financials and community property, the district court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the issues of asset division, child support, and alimony in early 2022.[1] Both parties testified at the hearing.
Relevant to the instant appeal, the evidentiary hearing revealed that the parties were undocumented immigrants and therefore did not have social security numbers. Nevertheless, they operated a successful tax business (JC101 Tax Services) that was licensed using Jose's father's name and social security number and earned up to $150,000 per month during tax season, obtained a home (marital residence) in 2007 for $940,000 using a fake social security number, and obtained various vehicles. Isaura helped with the tax business from 2003 until 2017 when she became a stay-at-home mother following the birth of the parties' twin children. The parties utilized a Bank of America business account that was in the name of JC101 and was used to purchase four Raiders season tickets totaling $110,515.44.
Isaura testified that they had earned a substantial income from JC101. However, she testified that not long before filing for divorce, Jose transferred the business to his family members and continued operating it under a new name, Fidelity Tax Services, which she believed was an attempt to hide assets. Isaura also claimed that Jose gave away community vehicles to hide assets. She was the primary custodian of the parties' four minor children, had not worked in years, and Jose was in arrears and inconsistent with making child support payments. Jose acknowledged that he earned $13,500 per month in 2007 and had earned a substantial income in previous years but testified that he faced economic challenges and, despite his historical income, was unable to earn as much as he once had due to not having a social security number. He denied owning the tax businesses (JC101 and Fidelity Tax Services). His financial disclosure forms (FDFs) showed that he was unemployed in 2020 earning $0 per month and was later employed as a "laborer" earning $2,080 per month but he did not submit paystubs and had expenses of over $7,000 per month.
Isaura contended that all of the aforementioned assets were community property subject to division. She requested a lump sum alimony payment of $300,000 from the sale of the marital residence, to have a monthly income of at least $10,000 imputed to Jose for the purposes of calculating child support, to be reimbursed for her half of the Raiders tickets, and to keep three of the parties' six vehicles. Isaura also requested $30,000 in attorney fees. Jose contended that the tax businesses, which were closed, were not community property. Regarding the vehicles, Jose asserted that the community owned only three vehicles, which he requested be sold, and claimed that they had given away two vehicles to his parents and adult son. He also requested that the marital residence be sold with the proceeds used to satisfy community debts and then split between the parties. Jose asserted that the Raiders tickets were purchased from the Bank of America business account in which Isaura had no ownership interest. Finally, Jose contended that he could not afford alimony on top of the child support payments he was making for $800 per month plus $80 in arrears.
Following the evidentiary hearing, the district court entered a divorce decree ordering that (1) each party was to keep two season tickets to the Raiders, which were community property purchased with community assets from a joint business bank account that they both used but was in JClOTs name; (2) the marital residence was to be sold; and (3) the parties be awarded three cars each. The court found that it did not have jurisdiction over the tax businesses, as the parties were not the legal owners of either business. The court awarded Isaura a lump sum alimony payment of $50,000 and imputed an income of $8,600 per month to Jose for purposes of determining child support, which it calculated at $2,044 per month. Regarding credibility, the court found that Jose and his FDFs were not credible and further found that the aforementioned assets and lifestyle were not that of a laborer and "instead, it is clear that [Jose] is actively deceiving the court about his income and earning capacity.
Outcome: The district court's exercise of jurisdiction and division of property with respect to the marital residence, vehicles, and Raiders tickets was affirmed.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: