FORS VS. FORS (FAMILY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

This is a pro se appeal from a post-divorce decree order awarding attorney fees. The dismissal rests on the appellant's repeated failure to file a conforming docketing statement despite serial notices and deadlines. The opinion recounts the procedural sequence: a April 3, 2026 notice directing the docketing statement to be filed and served by April 24, 2026; an untimely April 25, 2026 attempt, rejected April 28, 2026 as untimely and deficient with instructions to correct and re-file accompanied by a motion for extension of time; an April 30, 2026 filing that combined the docketing statement and the motion, struck May 4, 2026 both for deficiency and because the two must be filed as separate documents; a May 7, 2026 attempt, with the motion for extension of time struck as deficient; and a May 20, 2026 order noting the corrected docketing statement was overdue and directing filing and service within 7 days. The court cited NRAP 14(c) in cautioning that failure to comply could result in dismissal. Determining that the appellant had failed to file the docketing statement and appeared to have abandoned the appeal, the court ordered the appeal dismissed.

In plain language

This case involves an appeal that never got off the ground because required paperwork was never properly filed. After a divorce, the family court ordered Anita A. Fors to pay attorney fees, and she appealed that order without a lawyer. To move an appeal forward, a party must file a document called a "docketing statement" - a form the appeals court uses to get basic information about the case. The court set a series of deadlines for Fors to file this document correctly. According to the opinion, the court gave her notice on April 3, 2026, to file the docketing statement by April 24, 2026. She attempted to file it on April 25, one day late, and the court rejected it on April 28 as both untimely and deficient (not meeting the rules). The opinion describes several more rounds of attempts and rejections. On April 30, she filed the docketing statement with a motion for an extension of time attached, but on May 4 the court struck both documents because the docketing statement was still deficient and because the two items had to be filed separately rather than combined. She tried again on May 7, and the court struck the motion for extension of time as deficient. When she still did not file a corrected docketing statement or a proper motion for more time, the court issued another order on May 20, 2026, giving her seven more days and warning that failure to comply could result in dismissal. The opinion states that, as of the date of the order, Fors had still not filed the docketing statement. Concluding that she appeared to have abandoned the appeal, the court dismissed it.