Hope Antoinette Backman v. Daniel Morris Gelbman

Reno, Nevada family law lawyers represented the parties in a child support dispute.





Backman and respondent Daniel Morris Gelbman have litigated child support matters since not long after the birth of their child in 2013.[1] From 2014 to 2019, Gelbman paid Backman between $731 and $858 per month in child support, depending on the district court order in place at the time. Gelbman retired from firefighting in 2019 at age 44 and subsequently moved to modify child support based on a greater than 20 percent decrease in income pursuant to NRS 125B. 145(4). At the May 2020 hearing on Gelbman's motion, Backman provided the family court master with the standard financial declaration required under WDCR 40(2), Venmo records pertaining to her self-employment as a house cleaner, and screenshots of her bank account balance. The master determined that these records were insufficient to determine Backman's income, imputed income to Backman equal to that of Gelbman, and set child support at zero.







The district court later denied Backman's objection to the master's findings and recommendations (MFR). Backman moved several times over the next few years to modify child support based on changed circumstances. In August 2020, Backman filed a motion to modify in which she claimed that the restrictions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic eliminated her employment, but she did not provide documentation in support of that assertion. In May 2021, Backman again moved to modify based on a greater than 20 percent decrease in income but did not request a hearing or provide any proof of a decrease in income. Both of these motions were denied, and child support remained at zero.



In September 2022, Backman filed another motion to modify, this time alleging that Gelbman was receiving income from real estate sales and a substitute teaching job. The master conducted a hearing concerning Backman's motion and a deputy district attorney from the child support division appeared at the hearing. Based on the financial declarations filed by Backman and Gelbman, the deputy district attorney opined that Gelbman should pay Backman $286 per month in child support. The master, however, was suspicious of Backman's claims about Gelbman's additional income streams as well as her claims about her own income. Despite the deputy district attorney's calculations, the master declined to modify the child support award and left it at zero. The district court later denied Backman's objection to the MFR in January 2023 and adopted the recommendations as an order.



Backman v. Gelbman, 86396-COA (Nev. App. Nov 20, 2024)

Revered and remanded.