F-Law
← Case library

BINGHAM VS. BINGHAM (CHILD CUSTODY)

26-12049 · 92141 · Nevada (SCOTN/COA) · March 16, 2026

Disposition:Appeal dismissed.Custody & Relocation

Posture Dekesha Bingham docketed an appeal on February 20, 2026, in a child custody matter against Marlon Bingham, but did not pay the required filing fee. The Nevada Supreme Court issued a notice the same day directing the appellant to pay the fee or demonstrate compliance with NRAP 24 within 7 days, warning that noncompliance would result in dismissal.

Editorial review flagged 5 item(s) at material severity. Verify against the source PDF before relying.

Key holdings

- An appeal docketed without the filing fee required by NRAP 3(e), where the appellant fails to pay or to demonstrate compliance with NRAP 24 after notice, is subject to dismissal under NRAP 3(a)(2).

Practitioner summary

The court dismissed the appeal under NRAP 3(a)(2) for failure to pay the filing fee required by NRAP 3(e). After the appeal was docketed without the fee, the court issued a 7-day notice to pay the fee or demonstrate compliance with NRAP 24 (governing proceedings in forma pauperis). The appellant neither paid nor responded, and dismissal followed. The order additionally states that no action will be taken on the notice of withdrawal of attorney for respondent filed by Maggie Miya on February 20, 2026, in light of the dismissal.

In plain language

This is a brief administrative order from the Nevada Supreme Court ending an appeal before the court considered the merits. The appellant, Dekesha Bingham, filed an appeal in a child custody case but did not pay the filing fee that the court rules require when an appeal is opened. The court sent her a notice on the same day she filed her appeal, telling her she had 7 days either to pay the fee or to show that she qualified to proceed without paying it under the rule that allows certain people to appeal without prepaying costs (NRAP 24). She did not pay and did not respond. Because of that, the court dismissed the appeal. The order also notes that, because the appeal is being dismissed, the court will not act on a separate filing in which the respondent's attorney sought to withdraw from the case.

Read the full opinion →

This summary is independently verified against the source opinion. It is an informational research aid, not legal advice, and no substitute for reading the decision.