WALPORT VS. WALPORT (DIVORCE)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

This divorce appeal was resolved by treating the respondent's failure to file an answering brief as a confession of error. After the respondent failed to comply with a January 20, 1982 order (30 days to obtain counsel; 60 days to file a brief), the court sua sponte granted an additional 30 days on April 5, 1982, warning that noncompliance might be treated as a confession of error. The respondent neither filed an answering brief nor apparently retained counsel. The court elected to treat the respondent's conduct as a confession of error under NRAP 31(c). See Rockwell v. Rockwell, 98 Nev. 80, 640 P.2d 1318 (1982). It accordingly reversed the district court's order denying the appellant's motion to modify the decree of divorce and remanded for further proceedings.

In plain language

In this divorce appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court had twice ordered the respondent to obtain counsel and file an answering brief. First, in January 1982, she was given 30 days to get a lawyer and 60 days to file her brief; she did not comply. Then, on the court's own initiative in April 1982, she was granted an extra 30 days and warned that failure to comply might be treated as a confession of error, with the appeal decided accordingly. She still did not file a brief and apparently did not retain a lawyer. The court chose to treat her conduct as a confession of error under the appellate rules (citing its recent Rockwell decision). Accordingly, it reversed the district court's order that had denied the appellant's motion to modify the divorce decree, and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.