GENNARDO VS. GENNARDO (CHILD CUSTODY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court applied the jurisdictional framework from Mack-Manley v. Manley, 122 Nev. 849, 855, 138 P.3d 525, 529-30 (2006), under which a district court lacks jurisdiction to rule on matters going to the merits of a pending appeal but retains jurisdiction over collateral matters that do not affect the merits. Because Douglas's appeal of financial issues (Docket No. 85089) was being dismissed and Natalie represented that her remaining appeal (Docket No. 85370) does not challenge any financial issues, the merits-jurisdiction bar of Mack-Manley does not reach the financial issues. The district court therefore retains jurisdiction over those issues without need for a formal remand. The court granted the joint motion to dismiss Docket No. 85089 under NRAP 42(b), with each side bearing its own costs. The custody appeal in Docket No. 85370 was returned to the fast track program, to proceed under NRAP 3E, with Natalie's fast track statement and appendix due within 21 days, and subsequent briefing under NRAP 3E(d). The order notes that failure to timely file may result in sanctions under NRAP 3E(i). Pending motions for extensions of time to file the fast track statement and opening brief were denied as moot. The court reporter's motion for an extension to file transcripts was granted under NRAP 9(c)(4), with a reminder under NRAP 9(a)(3)(A) that copies of all transcript requests must be filed with the court.

In plain language

Douglas and Natalie Gennardo are divorced parents with two appeals pending before the Nevada Supreme Court - one focused on financial issues from the divorce, and one focused on child custody. While the appeals were pending, Natalie asked the Supreme Court to either tell the trial court it could go ahead and enforce parts of the divorce decree (including an alleged hidden or improperly transferred asset), or send the case back down so the trial court could handle those matters. Douglas opposed that request. The parties then reached a settlement on all the financial issues and jointly asked the court to: (1) dismiss the financial appeal (Docket No. 85089), (2) put the custody appeal (Docket No. 85370) back on the court's expedited "fast track" schedule, and (3) send the case back to the trial court so the settlement could be adopted and carried out. The Supreme Court dismissed the financial appeal as the parties requested. Because the financial appeal was now gone and Natalie was not challenging financial issues in the remaining custody appeal, the court explained that the trial court already had jurisdiction to enter orders on financial matters - so a formal remand was unnecessary. The court denied Natalie's earlier motion and the joint remand request as no longer needed. It granted the request to put the custody appeal back on the fast track, gave Natalie 21 days to file her fast track statement and appendix, and granted the court reporter additional time to prepare transcripts.