ROCKWELL VS. ROCKWELL (DIVORCE PROPERTY & ALIMONY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

This divorce appeal was resolved on a confession of error. On November 5, 1981, the court ordered the respondent to engage counsel within thirty days and file an answering brief within sixty days, cautioning that failure might result in a finding of confession of error under NRAP 31(c). No response or answering brief followed, and the appellant's unopposed motion asked the court to treat the failure as a confession of error. Cause appearing, the court granted the motion under NRAP 31(c). See Knapp v. Lemieux, 97 Nev. 450, 634 P.2d 454 (1981). It reversed the judgment insofar as it rested on findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning the appellant's alleged fraudulent intent in entering the marriage, and remanded for a redistribution of the parties' property. The portion of the judgment dissolving the marriage was not challenged on appeal and was unaffected by the opinion.

In plain language

In this divorce appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court had ordered the respondent (the party defending the appeal) to hire a lawyer within thirty days and to file an answering brief within sixty days, warning that failure to file the brief might be treated as a "confession of error" under the appellate rules. The respondent never responded and never filed a brief. The appellant then asked the court to treat that failure as a confession of error, and the motion was unopposed. The court granted the motion. Under the rule allowing it to treat a missing answering brief as a confession of error, the court reversed the part of the judgment that rested on findings that the appellant had a fraudulent intent when entering the marriage, and it sent the case back for a redistribution of the parties' property. The court made clear that the part of the judgment dissolving the marriage was not challenged and would not be affected - the parties remained divorced; only the property division tied to the fraud findings was undone.