BARRAL VS. BARRAL (CHILD CUSTODY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court dismissed the appeal sua sponte for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Reviewing the notice of appeal and accompanying documents, the court determined that the challenged district court order (1) granted appellant the relief he sought by suspending his support obligation and (2) denied respondent's motion to reduce support arrears to judgment. Because appellant obtained the relief he requested, he was not an aggrieved party within the meaning of NRAP 3A(a), which limits the right to appeal to aggrieved parties. The dismissal is jurisdictional and does not address the merits of the custody, visitation, or support issues.

In plain language

Dustin Barral asked a family court judge in Clark County to change the child custody, visitation, and support arrangements between him and Megan Barral (now Megan Hammonds). The family court issued an order that suspended his child support obligation - which is what he had asked for - and also denied Megan's request to convert past-due support into a formal judgment. Dustin then tried to appeal that order to the Nevada Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal without reaching the substance of the dispute. The reason: under Nevada's appellate rules, only a party who has been harmed or "aggrieved" by a court order has the right to appeal it. Because the family court gave Dustin the relief he asked for, he was not harmed by the order and therefore had no right to appeal. The court accordingly dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.