MAYS VS. MAYS (FAMILY)

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)." After docketing on September 13, 2024, the court issued a notice giving appellant 14 days to provide the required proof of service, and on October 7, 2024, issued a follow-up order with another 14-day deadline and a dismissal warning. The court invoked NRAP 3(a)(2), which provides that "[a]n appellant's failure to take any step other than the timely filing of a notice of appeal does not affect the validity of the appeal, but is ground only for the court to act as it deems appropriate, including dismissing the appeal." Because the appellant did not comply with either directive, the court exercised that discretion and dismissed.

In plain language

When a person files an appeal in Nevada, the rules require them to send a copy of the notice of appeal to the other parties and to file paperwork with the court showing that they did so. That paperwork is called "proof of service." In this case, Keon Mays filed an appeal against McKenna Mays, but did not include proof of service with the notice of appeal. The Nevada Supreme Court told him on September 13, 2024, that he had 14 days to fix the problem, and warned him that the appeal could be dismissed if he did not. When he still had not responded, the court issued a second order on October 7, 2024, giving him another 14 days and again warning that the appeal would be dismissed if he did not comply. He still did not file the required document. As a result, the court dismissed the appeal without addressing any of the underlying family-law issues.