LOVELESS VS. SLATER (CHILD CUSTODY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

This is a clerk's order dismissing an appeal for failure to comply with NRAP 3(d)(1), which requires that a notice of appeal be served on all parties to the district court action and "contain an acknowledgment of service or proof of service that conforms to the requirements of [NRAP] 25(d)." The court invoked its authority under NRAP 3(a)(2), which provides that an appellant's failure to take any step other than the timely filing of a notice of appeal does not defeat the appeal's validity but "is ground only for the court to act as it deems appropriate, including dismissing the appeal." The procedural sequence reflects the court's standard escalation: (1) an August 27, 2025 notice giving 14 days to cure; (2) a September 22, 2025 order giving another 14 days with a dismissal warning; (3) an October 2, 2025 deficient filing that omitted the date and manner of service and names of persons served; (4) an October 3, 2025 order striking that filing and allowing 7 days to refile; and (5) a November 13, 2025 order giving a final 7 days with a dismissal warning. Continued noncompliance resulted in dismissal.

In plain language

When someone files an appeal in Nevada, the rules require them to serve (formally deliver) the notice of appeal on the other parties and then prove to the court that they did so. In this child-custody appeal, the appellant filed her notice of appeal but did not include the required proof that she had served it on the other side. The Supreme Court gave her multiple chances to fix the problem. On August 27, 2025, the court told her she had 14 days to file the missing proof of service. On September 22, 2025, after she still had not done so, the court issued another order giving her another 14 days and warning that the appeal could be dismissed. On October 2, 2025, she filed a proof-of-service document, but it was missing required information - the date and manner of service and the names of the people served - so on October 3, 2025, the court struck that filing and gave her 7 days to file a corrected version. On November 13, 2025, after she still had not corrected it, the court issued yet another order giving her 7 more days and again warning that the appeal would be dismissed. She did not comply. The court therefore dismissed the appeal. The dismissal is based solely on the failure to perfect service paperwork; the order does not address the merits of the underlying custody dispute.