FAGAN VS. BLITCH (CHILD CUSTODY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Under Brown v. MHC Stagecoach, LLC, 129 Nev. 343, 345, 301 P.3d 850, 851 (2013), the Nevada Supreme Court "may only consider appeals authorized by statute or court rule." The challenged order was not a final judgment under NRAP 3A(b)(1), see Lee v. GNLV Corp., 116 Nev. 424, 426, 996 P.2d 416, 417 (2000), because the issue of custody remained pending in the district court. Nor did the order qualify as final under NRAP 3A(b)(7), which defines when an order pertaining to custody is deemed final. The contempt portion of the order was not independently appealable under Vaile v. Vaile, 133 Nev. 213, 217, 396 P.3d 791, 794-95 (2017). In response to the show-cause order, appellant conceded non-appealability under NRAP 3A(b)(1) and NRAP 3A(b)(7) and the absence of jurisdiction over the contempt ruling, and identified no alternative statute or rule authorizing the appeal. The court accordingly dismissed.

In plain language

This case never reached the merits. Samantha Fagan tried to appeal a district court order that addressed child support and also sanctioned her for contempt of court. Before considering whether the lower court got anything right or wrong, the Nevada Supreme Court had to decide whether it had the power to hear the appeal at all. The Nevada Supreme Court can only hear appeals that a statute or court rule specifically allows. Here, the court flagged a problem: the underlying custody dispute was still pending in the district court, meaning the order Fagan wanted to challenge was not a "final" decision. Nevada's appellate rules generally require finality before an appeal can be taken. Separately, the contempt-sanction portion of the order is not the kind of ruling that can be appealed on its own under existing Nevada Supreme Court precedent. The court asked Fagan to explain why the appeal should go forward. Fagan agreed that the order was not appealable under the rules the court identified and did not point to any other statute or rule authorizing an appeal. With no jurisdictional basis to proceed, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. Fagan may still pursue her arguments in the district court while the custody matter remains pending there; the dismissal addresses only the timing and form of appellate review, not the underlying merits.