Khalifah v. Hollings (Child Custody)

Key holdings

• -Orders denying motions under NRCP 59 and/or NRCP 60 are generally appealable under NRAP 3A(b)(2) or NRAP 3A(b)(8) only if the motions sought relief from an otherwise appealable order.
• -Contempt orders ancillary to another proceeding are not appealable.
• -Orders granting temporary custody are not substantively appealable, and appeals in child custody matters are allowed only from orders that finally resolve child custody issues.
• -Appellate jurisdiction exists only when the appeal is authorized by statute or court rule; absent such authorization, the appeal must be dismissed.

Practitioner summary

The court addressed a threshold jurisdictional question sua sponte upon reviewing the notice of appeal and the documents before it. The appeal arose from a district court order denying motions to reconsider and vacate under NRCP 59(e) and NRCP 60(b), directed at (1) the March 3, 2026, order after hearing finding appellant in contempt and granting respondent temporary custody, and (2) the March 23, 2026, order after hearing granting certification regarding a remand to address custody issues. The court recited the general rule that orders denying NRCP 59 and/or NRCP 60 motions are appealable under NRAP 3A(b)(2) or NRAP 3A(b)(8) "if the motions sought relief from an otherwise appealable order." Appealability of the denial thus turns on the appealability of the underlying orders. Applying that framework, the court determined the underlying orders were not appealable. Relying on Pengilly v. Rancho Santa Fe Homeowners Ass'n, 116 Nev. 646, 5 P.38d 569 (2000), the court noted that contempt orders ancillary to another proceeding are not appealable. Citing In re Temp. Custody of Five Minor Children, 105 Nev. 441, 443, 777 P.2d 901, 902 (1989), the court noted that orders granting temporary custody are not substantively appealable. The court further cited NRAP 3A(b)(7), which allows appeals only from orders that finally resolve child custody issues. Invoking Taylor Constr. Co. v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 100 Nev. 207, 678 P.2d 1152 (1984), the court reiterated that appellate jurisdiction exists only when an appeal is authorized by statute or court rule. Because the underlying orders were not appealable, the denial of the motions to reconsider and vacate them was likewise not appealable, and the court concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.

In plain language

Hakeem Khalifah appealed on his own behalf (without a lawyer, which is what "pro se" means) after a district court judge in Clark County denied his requests to reconsider and undo two earlier rulings in a child custody matter. One of those earlier rulings found him in contempt of court and gave the other party, Monique Hollings, temporary custody. The other ruling dealt with certifying that the district court would take up custody issues on a remand. Before deciding anything about the merits of the dispute, the Supreme Court of Nevada looked at whether it even had the authority to hear the appeal at all. Courts can only review certain kinds of orders on appeal; if a particular type of order is not one the law allows to be appealed, the appellate court has no power ("jurisdiction") to consider it. The court explained that while orders denying motions to reconsider or vacate can sometimes be appealed, that is only true when the underlying order those motions attacked was itself something that could be appealed. Here, the court concluded the underlying orders were not appealable. A contempt order that is connected to (ancillary to) another proceeding cannot be appealed on its own, and an order granting temporary custody is not the kind of custody decision that can be appealed. Under the applicable rule, custody appeals are allowed only from orders that finally resolve custody issues, and a temporary custody order does not do that. Because the underlying orders could not be appealed, the denial of the motions to reconsider and vacate them could not be appealed either. Having found it lacked jurisdiction, the court dismissed the appeal without reaching the substance of the custody dispute.