VIVAS VS. RAMOS (CHILD CUSTODY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

After holding the appeal in abeyance pursuant to NRAP 4(a)(5) (tolling motions) and NRAP 4(a)(6) (premature notice of appeal does not divest the district court of jurisdiction), the Supreme Court received the district court's December 31, 2024 order construing appellant's motion as a motion to set aside and to amend under NRCP 52(b), granting the motion to amend, and announcing that an amended findings of fact, conclusions of law, and decree of custody modifying the custody/visitation schedule would issue. The court applied the mootness doctrine as articulated in Personhood Nev. v. Bristol, 126 Nev. 599, 602, 245 P.3d 572, 574 (2010), under which an appeal is moot when the court cannot grant effective relief with respect to the challenged order. Because the district court was amending the very order under review, no effective appellate relief remained available, and the appeal was dismissed. The dismissal is without prejudice to any aggrieved party filing a new notice of appeal under NRAP 3(c) from any subsequent custody order entered by the district court, citing NRAP 4(a)(5)(B)(ii).

In plain language

Stephanie Vivas, representing herself, tried to appeal a Clark County family court decision about child custody involving David Ramos. While the appeal was pending, the Nevada Supreme Court paused the case and asked the lower court to first rule on a motion Vivas had filed asking the family court to undo its own ruling. The family court then issued an order saying it would treat Vivas's motion as a request to amend its decision, granted that request, and announced it would issue a new, modified custody and visitation order. Because the original ruling Vivas was challenging is being changed by the family court itself, the Supreme Court concluded there was nothing left for it to fix on appeal - the case is "moot," meaning the court can no longer give meaningful relief about the original order. The Supreme Court therefore dismissed the appeal. The dismissal is "without prejudice," which means Vivas (or Ramos) can file a new appeal from whatever new custody order the family court eventually issues, if either of them disagrees with it.