FORREST VS. WHITE-LARA (FAMILY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court dismissed the appeal for want of appellate jurisdiction. Reaffirming the principle that the Nevada Supreme Court "may only consider appeals authorized by statute or court rule," the court held that an interlocutory order directing or resolving a motion for the sale of a marital residence in a pending divorce action is not independently appealable. Citing Consolidated Generator Nev., Inc. v. Cummins Engine Co., 114 Nev. 1304, 971 P.2d 1251 (1998), the court noted that interlocutory orders entered prior to final judgment generally may be reviewed on appeal from the eventual final judgment. Citing Brown v. MHC Stagecoach, LLC, 129 Nev. 343, 345, 301 P.3d 850, 851 (2013), the court reiterated the jurisdictional limitation on its appellate authority. Appellant filed no opposition to the motion to dismiss. The court granted the motion and dismissed.

In plain language

This case arose out of a divorce proceeding in Clark County family court. While the divorce was still pending, the family court issued an order addressing a request to sell the couple's marital home. Mr. Forrest, representing himself, tried to appeal that order to the Nevada Supreme Court before the divorce case as a whole was finished. The other side, Ms. White-Lara, asked the Supreme Court to throw the appeal out. Her argument was simple: the order Mr. Forrest was challenging was not a final decision ending the case - it was an "interlocutory" order, meaning a ruling made along the way before the case is over. Under Nevada law, parties generally cannot appeal mid-case rulings; they have to wait until the case ends and then raise their objections in an appeal from the final judgment. Mr. Forrest did not file any response opposing the motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court agreed with Ms. White-Lara, explained that no statute or court rule allows an appeal from this kind of interim order about the marital residence, and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Mr. Forrest may still be able to challenge the order later, after a final judgment is entered, but the Supreme Court did not address the merits of his complaints about the order itself.