F-Law
← Case library

BRUMBY VS. BRUMBY (CHILD CUSTODY)

23-16011 · 86450 · Nevada (SCOTN/COA) · May 22, 2023

Disposition:Appeal dismissed.Custody & Relocation

Posture Shanda Nicole Brumby (n/k/a Shanda Nicole Armstrong) and Janae S. Brumby docketed an appeal in a child custody matter on April 25, 2023, without paying the required filing fee. The Nevada Supreme Court issued a notice the same day directing the appellants to pay the fee or demonstrate compliance with NRAP 24 within 14 days, warning that noncompliance would result in dismissal.

Editorial review flagged 9 item(s) at material severity. Verify against the source PDF before relying.

Key holdings

- Failure to pay the requisite filing fee under NRAP 3(e), or to demonstrate compliance with NRAP 24, after notice and an opportunity to cure, warrants dismissal of the appeal under NRAP 3(a)(2).

Practitioner summary

This is a clerk's order of dismissal for failure to comply with filing-fee requirements under NRAP 3(e). The court invoked its authority under NRAP 3(a)(2) after appellants failed, within the 14-day window set by the court's deficiency notice, either to pay the requisite filing fee or to demonstrate compliance with NRAP 24. The order does not address the merits of the underlying child custody dispute.

In plain language

When someone files an appeal with the Nevada Supreme Court, they generally have to pay a filing fee, or alternatively show that they qualify to proceed without paying it (a process governed by a court rule called NRAP 24, which addresses proceeding "in forma pauperis," meaning as a poor person who cannot afford the fee). In this child custody appeal, the appellants did not pay the filing fee when the appeal was opened. The court sent them a notice giving them 14 days either to pay the fee or to show they qualified to skip it. The notice told them that if they did neither, the appeal would be dismissed. The appellants did not pay and did not otherwise respond. The court therefore dismissed the appeal without reaching any of the underlying issues in the custody 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.