KADER VS. KADER (CHILD CUSTODY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court conducted a sua sponte jurisdictional review of the notice of appeal. It held that the challenged interlocutory order was not appealable as a final judgment under NRAP 3A(b)(1) because it did not dispose of all issues in the underlying case, citing Lee v. GNLV Corp., 116 Nev. 424, 426, 996 P.2d 416, 417 (2000) ("[A] final judgment is one that disposes of all the issues presented in the case, and leaves nothing for the future consideration of the court, except for post-judgment issues such as attorney's fees and costs"). The complaint for divorce and associated custody issues remained pending below. The court further held that the order was not appealable under NRAP 3A(b)(7) because it did not finally establish or modify custody of the minor children. Finding no other statute or court rule authorizing the appeal, the court invoked Brown v. MHC Stagecoach, LLC, 129 Nev. 343, 345, 301 P.3d 850, 851 (2013), for the proposition that the court "may only consider appeals authorized by statute or court rule," and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

In plain language

This was a divorce case still in progress in the Clark County family court. While the case was ongoing, the trial judge issued an order that, among other things, fined Mr. Kader and denied his request for full custody of the children. Mr. Kader, representing himself, tried to appeal that order to the Nevada Supreme Court. The Supreme Court did not decide whether the trial judge was right or wrong. Instead, the Court explained that it can only hear appeals when a specific statute or court rule allows it. Generally, a party can only appeal after the trial court has finished with the case - issuing what is called a "final judgment." Here, the divorce case was not over: the divorce complaint and the custody issues were still pending in the lower court. The Court also concluded that the order did not "finally establish or modify" custody, which would have been another route to appeal. Because no rule or statute permitted an appeal from this kind of mid-case order, the Supreme Court said it had no power (no "jurisdiction") to hear the appeal and dismissed it. Mr. Kader can continue to litigate the underlying divorce and custody case in the family court; the dismissal simply means the Supreme Court will not review the order at this stage.