BROTHERSON VS. BROTHERSON (FAMILY)
24-40904 · 89091 · Nevada (SCOTN/COA) · October 30, 2024
Disposition:Appeal dismissed.Other Family LawPosture Maria Brotherson, appearing pro se, appealed a final judgment from the Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Division, Clark County (Judge Dedree Butler). The Nevada Supreme Court dismissed the appeal after the appellant failed to file required initial appellate documents despite a notice and a follow-up order.
Key holdings
Practitioner summary
The court dismissed the appeal for failure to prosecute under NRAP 14 (docketing statement) and NRAP 9(a) (transcript request requirements). After the clerk's September 6, 2024 notice setting deadlines of 21 days for the docketing statement and 14 days for the transcript request form or certificate of no transcript request, the appellant did not comply. The court issued a follow-up order on October 3, 2024, with a hard deadline of October 10, 2024, and an express warning that noncompliance could result in dismissal. Continued noncompliance led the panel to treat the appeal as abandoned and order dismissal.
In plain language
This is a short procedural order, not a ruling on the merits of any family-law dispute. Maria Brotherson filed an appeal from a final judgment in a family-court case in Clark County. She represented herself. When someone files an appeal in Nevada, the Supreme Court clerk requires certain paperwork early in the process - including a "docketing statement" (a form summarizing the appeal) and either a request for transcripts of the lower-court proceedings or a certificate stating no transcripts will be requested. On September 6, 2024, the clerk sent Brotherson a notice telling her to file these documents within set deadlines. She did not. The court then issued a second order on October 3, 2024, giving her until October 10, 2024, to file the missing documents and warning that, if she did not, the appeal could be dismissed. She still did not file them. Concluding that she had abandoned her appeal, the court dismissed it. The order does not address the underlying family-law issues.
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.