Rohmiller v. Rohmiller (Family)

Key holdings

• -The Nevada Supreme Court "may only consider appeals authorized by statute or court rule."
• -No statute or court rule authorizes an appeal from an order deferring a ruling, applying "heightened scrutiny" to future filings, vacating hearings, imposing a standard fee for filing motions, or admonishing a party, so the court lacks jurisdiction over such an appeal.

Practitioner summary

The supreme court reviewed the documents submitted and identified a jurisdictional defect: the order identified in the notice of appeal is not substantively appealable. The court reiterated the settled rule that it "may only consider appeals authorized by statute or court rule," citing Brown v. MHC Stagecoach, LLC, 129 Nev. 348, 345, 301 P.3d 850, 851 (2013). Applying that rule, the court held that no statute or court rule authorizes an appeal from an order deferring a ruling (here, on a vexatious-litigant motion), applying "heightened scrutiny" to future filings, vacating hearings, imposing a standard fee for filing motions, or admonishing a party. Lacking jurisdiction, the court ordered the appeal dismissed. The order does not reach the merits of the district court's filing restrictions or the deferred vexatious-litigant determination. The panel consisted of Justices Stiglich, Cadish, and Lee.

In plain language

This is a short procedural order, not a decision about who wins the underlying family-law dispute. Tina Leah Rohmiller tried to appeal a district court order that had done several things: it put off (deferred) a decision on whether to formally label her a "vexatious litigant" - a designation courts use for parties who repeatedly file baseless papers; it announced that her future filings would get "heightened scrutiny"; it canceled upcoming hearings; it required her to pay $25.00 for each motion she files; and it scolded her for what the district court called "serial nonsensical filings." The Nevada Supreme Court did not weigh in on whether any of that was fair or proper. Instead, it concluded it had no power - no jurisdiction - to hear the appeal at all. In Nevada, a party can only appeal an order if some statute or court rule specifically authorizes an appeal from that kind of order. The court found that no statute or rule allows an appeal from an order that merely defers a ruling, applies heightened scrutiny to future filings, vacates hearings, imposes a standard motion fee, or admonishes a party. Because the order was not appealable, the court dismissed the appeal without addressing its merits.