GUERIN VS. GUERIN (DIVORCE)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court applied the fugitive disentitlement doctrine to dismiss appellant Tracy Hill's appeal. An appellate court has discretion to dismiss the appeal of a party who is evading arrest under a contempt order and bench warrant. See United States v. Barnette, 129 F.3d 1179 (11th Cir. 1997); Closset v. Closset, 71 Nev. 80, 280 P.2d 290 (1955). Given Hill's fugitive status and continued refusal to comply with the district court's transfer and contempt orders, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss. As to the Hill Family Trust, the court held that its notice of appeal, filed by non-attorney trustee Charles Hill, was invalid. A proper person may not represent an entity such as a trust; a trust must be represented by a licensed Nevada attorney. Salman v. Newell, 110 Nev. 1333, 1335-36, 885 P.2d 607, 608 (1994); Sunde v. Contel of California, 112 Nev. 541, 915 P.2d 298 (1996). Only an active State Bar member may practice law in Nevada, and violation is a crime under NRS 7.285; SCR 77. Because the proper and timely filing of a notice of appeal is jurisdictional, Rust v. Clark Cty. School District, 103 Nev. 686, 747 P.2d 1380 (1987), and a notice that is the product of the unauthorized practice of law cannot vest jurisdiction, the court dismissed the trust's appeal. The court denied the motion to dismiss the appeal as to Charles Hill individually because he was represented to be in compliance with the district court's orders.

In plain language

This is the second time the divorce war between Tracy O. Guerin (later Tracy O. Hill) and Harold D. Guerin reached the Nevada Supreme Court. After an earlier appeal sent the case back to the trial court, the parties negotiated and the district court entered a second amended divorce decree in January 1999. That decree awarded Harold two beach houses in San Carlos, Mexico, and ordered Tracy to transfer title to him by a set date. Tracy refused. She had already transferred one of the houses to a Mexican national acting as her agent, and she ignored the court's orders to hand over the properties and to appear in court. The district court found her in contempt, sentenced her to jail, voided her transfer of the house, and issued a warrant for her arrest. Tracy fled and did not comply. While a fugitive, Tracy tried to appeal. The Supreme Court refused to hear her appeal, applying the 'fugitive disentitlement doctrine.' That rule lets an appeals court dismiss the appeal of a person who is dodging arrest and defying the trial court's orders. Because Tracy was evading a contempt warrant and continuing to disobey the court, the Court dismissed her appeal. Charles Hill, Tracy's new husband, tried to appeal on behalf of the 'Hill Family Trust,' a trust he and Tracy created. But Charles is not a lawyer, and Nevada law does not let a non-lawyer represent a trust or any other entity in court. Because the trust's notice of appeal was filed by a non-attorney, it was invalid and did not give the Supreme Court jurisdiction, so the Court dismissed the trust's appeal too. The Court did allow Charles Hill to remain in the case in his individual capacity.