FISHER VS. DEVORE (CHILD CUSTODY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court applied the settled rule that appellate jurisdiction in Nevada exists only where conferred by statute or court rule, citing Brown v. MHC Stagecoach, LLC, 129 Nev. 343, 345, 301 P.3d 850, 851 (2013). On sua sponte review of the notice of appeal and accompanying documents, the court identified a jurisdictional defect: no statute or court rule authorizes an appeal from a pre-decree order denying an ex parte motion regarding pickup in a divorce action. The court accordingly dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The order does not address the substantive merits of the underlying ex parte motion or the divorce proceeding, nor does it discuss whether any other vehicle for review might be available.

In plain language

This is a short, jurisdictional ruling. While a divorce case was still pending in district court in Elko County, one of the parties, Lauren Taylor Fisher, filed an ex parte motion (a request made to the judge without the other side present) about a "pickup" issue. The district judge denied that motion. Ms. Fisher, representing herself, then tried to appeal that denial to the Nevada Supreme Court. The Supreme Court did not reach the merits of the dispute. Instead, it explained that it can only hear appeals that some statute or court rule specifically allows. Because no statute or rule permits an appeal from this kind of pre-decree order denying an ex parte motion, the court concluded it had no power to hear the case and dismissed the appeal. In practical terms, the underlying divorce case continues in the district court; the Supreme Court's order simply means it could not step in at this stage.