F-Law
← Case library

IN RE: GUARDIANSHIP OF J.L.M. (CHILD CUSTODY)

26-17382 · 92062 · Nevada (SCOTN/COA) · April 15, 2026

Disposition:Appeal dismissed.Custody & Relocation

Posture Lamiia E. M., proceeding pro se as guardian of the estate of a protected minor, appealed an order of the Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Division (Judge Stacy Michelle Rocheleau), that granted her own "petition to amend order regarding deposit of funds." The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the notice of appeal sua sponte for jurisdiction.

Key holdings

- Under NRAP 3A(a), only an aggrieved party may appeal, and a party who prevailed below and does not seek to alter the rights flowing from the judgment is not aggrieved. - Where a guardian petitions the district court to amend an order and the district court grants the petition as requested, the guardian is not aggrieved and cannot appeal that amended order.

Practitioner summary

The court dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Citing NRAP 3A(a), the court reiterated that only an "aggrieved" party may appeal, relying on Valley Bank of Nev. v. Ginsburg, 110 Nev. 440, 446, 874 P.2d 729, 734 (1994), for the definition of "aggrieved." Applying that standard, the court observed that appellant herself had filed the December 31, 2025, petition seeking amendment of the November 11, 2025, deposit order, and that the district court's January 14, 2026, order granted the petition and amended the prior order in conformity with appellant's request. Because appellant prevailed below and sought no further alteration of the parties' rights, she was not aggrieved within the meaning of Ford v. Showboat Operating Co., 110 Nev. 752, 756, 877 P.2d 546, 549 (1994) ("A party who prevailed in the district court and who does not wish to alter any rights of the parties arising from the judgment is not aggrieved by the judgment."). Lacking jurisdiction, the court dismissed the appeal.

In plain language

This case involves a guardianship for a minor child. The guardian, Lamiia E. M., asked the district court to change an earlier order so that money coming from a California probate case would be deposited into a "blocked" bank account held for the protected minor. On January 14, 2026, the district court granted her request and amended the order exactly as she had asked. She then appealed that order to the Nevada Supreme Court. The Supreme Court noticed a basic problem before reaching any other issue: under Nevada's appellate rules, only a party who has been hurt or "aggrieved" by a ruling is allowed to appeal it. Because the guardian had asked the district court to do something and the district court did exactly that, she won below. A party who wins and does not want to change the outcome cannot appeal. For that reason, the Supreme Court concluded it had no jurisdiction (no legal power) to hear the appeal and dismissed it.

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.