SHAHROKHI VS. BURROW (CHILD CUSTODY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court conducted a sua sponte jurisdictional review of a pro se appeal from a family court order clarifying a hearing master's recommendation and adjudicating contempt for nonpayment of child support. The threshold question was whether the challenged order is substantively appealable under any statute or court rule. The court relied on the rule that "[t]his court may only consider appeals authorized by statute or court rule," quoting Brown v. MHC Stagecoach, LLC, 129 Nev. 343, 345, 301 P.3d 850, 851 (2013). Applying Pengilly v. Rancho Santa Fe Homeowners Ass'n, 116 Nev. 646, 5 P.3d 569 (2000), the court reiterated that contempt orders ancillary to another proceeding are not appealable. No other statutory or rule-based avenue authorized review. Addressing the additional rulings the appellant identified in his notice of appeal, the court explained: (1) the order resolving his NRCP 60 motion to set aside was already the subject of a pending appeal in Docket No. 83726; (2) findings related to a vexatious-litigant determination are not independently appealable, citing Peck v. Crouser, 129 Nev. 120, 295 P.3d 586 (2013); and (3) the apparent denial of his emergency motion for temporary change of custody existed only as a January 10, 2022 minute order, which is not effective for appeal until reduced to a written, signed, and filed order, citing State, Div. of Child and Family Servs. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 445, 454, 92 P.3d 1239, 1245 (2004) ("[D]ispositional court orders that are not administrative in nature, but deal with the procedural posture or merits of the underlying controversy, must be written, signed, and filed before they become effective"). Finding no jurisdictional hook, the court dismissed the appeal and declined to act on the appellant's pro se motions filed February 7 and 14, 2022.

In plain language

Ali Shahrokhi tried to appeal a family court order from Clark County. That order did two things: it clarified what a hearing master had recommended, and it held Mr. Shahrokhi in contempt for not paying child support he had been ordered to pay. He filed his appeal without an attorney. The Nevada Supreme Court did not reach the merits of his complaints. Instead, it concluded it had no power to hear the appeal in the first place. In Nevada, the Supreme Court can only review the kinds of orders that a statute or court rule specifically allows to be appealed. A contempt order that is tied to (or "ancillary to") another ongoing proceeding is not on that list, and no other statute or rule made this particular order appealable. The notice of appeal also referenced several other rulings: a motion to set aside earlier orders, findings related to a "vexatious litigant" determination (a label courts use for someone who repeatedly files meritless filings), and the denial of an emergency motion to change custody. The court explained that the set-aside ruling was already the subject of a separate appeal (Docket No. 83726); that vexatious-litigant findings cannot be appealed on their own; and that the emergency-custody denial existed only as a minute order, which is not effective for appeal purposes until it is written, signed, and filed. Because the court lacked jurisdiction, it dismissed the appeal and took no action on two pending pro se motions filed in February 2022.