RASMUSSEN VS. RASMUSSEN (CHILD CUSTODY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court resolved competing post-settlement motions in a pending family-law appeal. Citing NRAP 12A, the court explained that a remand during the pendency of an appeal requires an indicative ruling by the district court that it would grant relief, or a showing that the motion raises a substantial issue. Respondent, who indicated he may have filed a motion in the district court for clarification of the memorandum of understanding, provided nothing demonstrating an indicative ruling or a substantial issue. The court accordingly denied respondent's motion to remand for clarification or, alternatively, to set aside the settlement and continue the appeal. The court denied appellant's request for attorney fees and costs incurred in opposing respondent's motion without further analysis. The court granted appellant's motion for conditional dismissal, dismissed the appeal with each party bearing its own costs and fees, and remanded for the district court "to conduct appropriate proceedings, if any, to alter, amend, or vacate its order or judgment as necessary for the parties to fulfill the terms of their settlement agreement." If the district court declines to grant the requested relief, appellant may move to reinstate the appeal within 30 days of entry of the district court's order denying relief.

In plain language

The parties to this child-custody appeal settled their dispute while the case was pending before the Nevada Supreme Court. They signed a settlement term sheet and prepared a proposed order for the district court (the lower court) to enter. Both sides then filed motions in the Supreme Court on the same day, but asking for different things. Appellant asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the appeal conditionally, meaning the appeal would go away unless the district court refused to enter the agreed-upon order, in which case she could revive the appeal. Respondent, by contrast, asked the Supreme Court to send the case back ("remand") so the district court could clarify the parties' memorandum of understanding, or alternatively to set the settlement aside and keep the appeal going. The Supreme Court explained that any dispute over what the settlement actually means has to be raised first in the district court. Under the appellate rule governing remands during appeal, the Supreme Court can remand only if the district court has signaled it would grant relief or that there is a substantial issue. Respondent did not show either, so the court denied his remand request. The court also denied appellant's request for attorney fees for opposing that motion. The court then granted appellant's request to dismiss the appeal and sent the case back to the district court so it can take whatever steps are needed to carry out the settlement. If the district court refuses to grant the relief the parties want, appellant has 30 days from that denial to ask the Supreme Court to reinstate the appeal.