F-Law
← Case library

GLENNY VS. EPPERSON (CHILD CUSTODY)

25-15364 · 90256 · Nevada (SCOTN/COA) · April 4, 2025

Disposition:Appeal dismissed.Custody & Relocation

Posture Alicia Kay Glenny docketed an appeal on March 7, 2025, in a child custody matter involving Jeremy John Epperson, originating from the Washoe District Court (Family Division, Hon. Aimee Banales). The appeal was docketed without payment of the required filing fee.

Editorial review flagged 8 item(s) at material severity. Verify against the source PDF before relying.

Key holdings

- Failure to pay the filing fee required by NRAP 3(e), or to demonstrate compliance with NRAP 24, after notice and an opportunity to cure, supports dismissal of the appeal under NRAP 3(a)(2).

Practitioner summary

The Supreme Court dismissed this appeal under NRAP 3(a)(2) for failure to comply with the filing-fee requirement of NRAP 3(e). After the appeal was docketed without the requisite filing fee, the court issued a notice giving appellant 14 days to pay the fee or to demonstrate compliance with NRAP 24 (governing proceedings in forma pauperis). Appellant neither paid nor responded, and the court dismissed accordingly. The order does not reach any substantive issues in the child custody matter below.

In plain language

This is a very short procedural order. When someone files an appeal with the Nevada Supreme Court, they generally have to pay a filing fee, or else formally ask to proceed without paying it by following a specific court rule. In this case, the appellant - Alicia Kay Glenny - docketed her appeal in a child custody case but did not pay the filing fee. The Supreme Court sent her a notice the same day the appeal was docketed, telling her she had 14 days either to pay the fee or to show that she qualified to proceed without paying it. The notice warned that if she did not comply, her appeal would be dismissed. According to the order, she did not pay the fee and did not otherwise respond. Because of that, the court dismissed the appeal. The order does not address the underlying child custody dispute on the merits.

Read the full opinion →

This summary is independently verified against the source opinion. It is an informational research aid, not legal advice, and no substitute for reading the decision.