SMITH VS. QUIRIMIT (CHILD CUSTODY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court applied the settled rule that it "may only consider appeals authorized by statute or court rule." Brown v. AMC Stagecoach, Inc., 129 Nev. 343, 345, 301 P.3d 850, 851 (2013). The challenged order denied an interlocutory petition for abatement and established temporary child custody and support. NRAP 3A(b)(7) authorizes appeals from orders finally resolving child custody issues, but temporary custody orders are not substantively appealable. In re Temporary Custody of Five Minors, 105 Nev. 441, 443, 777 P.2d 901, 902 (1989). The court rejected appellant's two alternative theories of appellate jurisdiction. As to the collateral order doctrine, the court reiterated that Nevada has declined to adopt it. State Taxicab Auth. v. Greenspan, 109 Nev. 1022, 1025, 862 P.2d 423, 425 (1993). As to characterization of the order as a denial of a motion to dismiss, the court held that such denials are not appealable. Kirsch v. Traber, 134 Nev. 163, 168, 414 P.3d 818, 822 (2018). The court footnoted that it was "unable to locate" the Ducharm v. District Court, 95 Nev. 248, 593 P.2d 48 (1979) decision appellant cited for the proposition that denials of jurisdictional motions to dismiss are appealable. Lacking jurisdiction, the court dismissed the appeal and denied the pending motion for stay as moot.

In plain language

This is a child-custody dispute that never reached the merits in the Nevada Supreme Court. The trial court entered an order that did two things: it denied Angelo Smith's request to pause (abate) the case, and it set up temporary custody and support arrangements. Smith tried to appeal that order directly to the Nevada Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal without addressing the underlying custody questions. The reason is jurisdictional: in Nevada, a party can only appeal when a statute or court rule specifically allows an appeal from that type of order. Here, the order Smith challenged was a temporary custody order and a denial of a motion to dismiss - neither of which the law lets a party appeal right away. Final custody orders can be appealed; temporary ones generally cannot. Smith offered two theories for why his appeal should be allowed anyway. First, he invoked the "collateral order doctrine," a federal concept that lets parties appeal certain side-issue rulings before a case ends. The Nevada Supreme Court noted that it has not adopted that doctrine. Second, he argued the order was appealable as a denial of a motion to dismiss, citing a case called Ducharm v. District Court. The court stated it could not locate that case. Under Nevada precedent, denials of motions to dismiss are not appealable. Because no statute or rule authorized the appeal, the court dismissed it and denied Smith's pending motion for a stay as moot.