ACCOMANDO VS. ACCOMANDO (CHILD CUSTODY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court raised appellate jurisdiction sua sponte after reviewing the docketing statement. It identified the divorce decree, entered June 29, 2022, as the final judgment in the matter, citing Lee v. GNLV Corp., 116 Nev. 424, 426, 996 P.2d 416, 417 (2000). The challenged order - finding appellant in contempt, imposing sanctions, and directing compliance with the decree - was a post-judgment order entered in an ancillary proceeding. The court applied the rule that it "may only consider appeals authorized by statute or court rule," quoting Brown v. MHC Stagecoach, LLC, 129 Nev. 343, 345, 301 P.3d 850, 851 (2013). It further relied on Pengilly v. Rancho Santa Fe Homeowners Ass'n, 116 Nev. 646, 649, 5 P.3d 569, 671 (2000), for the proposition that a contempt order entered in an ancillary proceeding is not appealable. Finding no statute or rule authorizing review of an order finding contempt, imposing sanctions, and directing compliance with a divorce decree, the court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

In plain language

Mario Accomando and Georgann Rose Accomando were divorced, and the divorce decree was entered on June 29, 2022. After the divorce, the district court held a hearing on an "order to show cause" - a proceeding in which a party is asked to explain why they should not be held in contempt for disobeying a court order. The district court found Mario in contempt for not complying with the divorce decree, imposed sanctions, and ordered him to comply. Mario tried to appeal that contempt order to the Nevada Supreme Court. The Supreme Court did not reach the merits of his arguments. Instead, it concluded that it had no power to hear the appeal at all, because Nevada law only lets the Supreme Court hear appeals that a statute or court rule specifically authorizes. There is no statute or rule that allows an appeal from this kind of post-divorce contempt order. The court therefore dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.