SLADER VS. COLLEY (CHILD CUSTODY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court evaluated appellate jurisdiction sua sponte after docketing-statement review. Under NRAP 3A(b)(1), a decree of divorce is appealable as a final judgment only if it "disposes of all the issues presented in the case, and leaves nothing for the future consideration of the court, except for post-judgment issues such as attorney's fees and costs." Lee v. GNLV Corp., 116 Nev. 424, 426, 996 P.2d 416, 417 (2000). Appellant conceded that division of community debts and property and establishment of a holiday and vacation custody schedule remained pending. The court therefore concluded the decree was not a final judgment under NRAP 3A(b)(1). The court rejected appellant's alternative theory that the decree was appealable as a final custody determination under NRAP 3A(b)(7), citing Sicor, Inc. v. Sacks, 127 Nev. 896, 900, 266 P.3d 618, 620 (2011), for the proposition that the court "routinely dismiss[es] appeals from interim custody orders that contemplate further district court proceedings before entry of a final custody order." Because no other statute or court rule authorized the appeal, dismissal was required. Brown v. MHC Stagecoach, LLC, 129 Nev. 343, 345, 301 P.3d 850, 851 (2013) (the court "may only consider appeals authorized by statute or court rule"). Respondent's pro se motion for an extension of time to file a reply was denied as moot, and any affirmative relief requested in appellant's response was denied.

In plain language

Cheryl Ann Slader and Cory Lawrence Colley went through a divorce in Clark County family court. After the district court entered a decree of divorce, Slader tried to appeal that decree to the Nevada Supreme Court. Before the Supreme Court can hear an appeal, it has to have jurisdiction - that is, legal authority to review the lower court's decision. In Nevada, you generally cannot appeal from a divorce decree until the district court has finished with the case. If important issues are still pending in the trial court, the decree is not yet "final" and is not yet appealable. When the Supreme Court looked at the paperwork, it noticed two issues that appeared still unresolved: how the couple's community debts and property would be divided, and what the holiday and vacation custody schedule would be. The court told Slader to explain why the appeal should not be dismissed. In her response, Slader acknowledged that those issues were indeed still pending in the district court. She argued that the decree could at least be treated as a final custody order, which is separately appealable under a Nevada appellate rule. The Supreme Court disagreed, noting that the decree did not fully resolve custody because the holiday and vacation schedule was still to be decided. Because no statute or court rule authorized an appeal from this not-yet-final decree, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. Slader can return to the Supreme Court later, after the district court resolves the remaining issues.