F-Law
← Case library

SEARE VS. SEARE (CHILD CUSTODY)

23-29762 · 87154 · Nevada (SCOTN/COA) · September 12, 2023

Disposition:Appeal dismissed.Custody & Relocation

Posture Wayne Andrew Seare appealed in a child custody matter involving Marinette Tedco Seare. The appeal was docketed on August 17, 2023, without payment of the filing fee required by NRAP 3(e). The Nevada Supreme Court issued a notice the same day directing the appellant to pay the fee or demonstrate compliance with NRAP 24 within 14 days, warning that noncompliance would result in dismissal.

Editorial review flagged 6 item(s) at material severity. Verify against the source PDF before relying.

Key holdings

- An appeal docketed without the filing fee required by NRAP 3(e), where the appellant fails to pay or demonstrate compliance with NRAP 24 after notice, is subject to dismissal under NRAP 3(a)(2).

Practitioner summary

The court dismissed the appeal under NRAP 3(a)(2) for failure to comply with the filing-fee requirement of NRAP 3(e). After docketing on August 17, 2023, the court issued a 14-day notice directing payment or compliance with NRAP 24 (governing in forma pauperis proceedings). Appellant neither paid nor responded, and the court entered dismissal as previously warned. The order announces no new doctrine; it is a procedural disposition.

In plain language

This is a brief administrative order, not a ruling on the merits of any custody dispute. When someone files an appeal with the Nevada Supreme Court, they generally must pay a filing fee or, if they cannot afford it, follow a specific procedure (under a rule called NRAP 24) to ask the court to let them proceed without paying. In this case, Wayne Andrew Seare filed an appeal but did not pay the filing fee. The court sent him a notice giving him 14 days either to pay or to follow the alternative procedure, and warned him that the appeal would be dismissed if he did neither. According to the order, he did not pay the fee and did not respond to the notice. The court therefore dismissed the appeal. The order does not address any of the underlying child custody issues.

Read the full opinion →

This summary is independently verified against the source opinion. It is an informational research aid, not legal advice, and no substitute for reading the decision.