GRASSO VS. GRASSO (CHILD CUSTODY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Appellate jurisdiction in Nevada exists only where authorized by statute or court rule. Brown v. MHC Stagecoach, LLC, 129 Nev. 343, 345, 301 P.3d 850, 851 (2013). NRAP 3A(b)(7) allows appeals only from orders that finally resolve child custody issues, and the court reiterated that orders granting temporary custody are not substantively appealable. In re Temporary Custody of Five Minors, 105 Nev. 441, 443, 777 P.2d 901, 902 (1989). The May 30, 2025, order set temporary custody, relocation, support, and supervised-visitation conditions pending an evidentiary hearing. Because those conditions could be altered or remedied in the final determination after further consideration and presentation of evidence, the order was not final or appealable. The court accordingly did not reach a separate potential defect - whether the notice of appeal was prematurely filed before resolution of a June 3, 2025, potential tolling motion under NRAP 4(a)(5)(B)(i) and AA Primo Builders, LLC v. Washington, 126 Nev. 578, 585, 245 P.3d 1190, 1195 (2010). The court declined appellant's request to convert the appeal into a writ proceeding, explaining that conversion has been reserved for circumstances where, "by misdirection of this court," parties would otherwise be denied an opportunity for review, citing Clark Cnty. Liquor v. Clark, 102 Nev. 654, 730 P.2d 443 (1986). The court noted those circumstances were not present, but stated dismissal is without prejudice to appellant's right to pursue extraordinary writ relief by separate petition under NRAP 21. The emergency stay motion was denied as moot.

In plain language

This case arose from a divorce in Clark County. The district court issued a temporary order addressing child custody, relocation, financial support, and supervised visitation while the divorce case continued toward a full evidentiary hearing. The husband appealed that temporary order to the Nevada Supreme Court and asked the court to put the order on hold while the appeal was pending. The Supreme Court did not reach the merits. Instead, it dismissed the appeal because it concluded it lacked authority to hear it. Under Nevada law, appeals are allowed only when a statute or court rule specifically permits them. Temporary custody and support orders are generally not the kind of orders that can be appealed; only final orders resolving custody can. The court explained that even though the appellant argued the temporary order had immediate, life-altering effects, the district court could still alter or remedy those conditions after holding the evidentiary hearing - so the order was not final. The court also declined to convert the appeal into a writ proceeding (a separate procedural mechanism for asking a higher court to intervene). It noted, however, that the dismissal does not bar the appellant from filing a separate writ petition. Because the appeal was dismissed, the emergency motion for stay was denied as moot.