Nevada family-law case summaries

This is a very short procedural order, not a decision on the merits of any dispute. Germana Rappa had asked the Court of Appeals for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition - a type of court order that asks a higher court either to direct a lower court to do something it is required to do (mandamus) or to stop a lower court from doing something it should not do (prohibition). The case arose out of the family division of the Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County, and the other person involved (the "real party in interest") was Aurelio Lorico. Before the court decided anything about the underlying issues, both sides agreed to end the matter. They filed a stipulation - a formal agreement between the parties - to dismiss the petition, and they agreed that each side would pay its own attorney fees and costs. The court approved that agreement and dismissed the petition. The opinion does not describe what the underlying dispute was about or resolve any legal question.

Mr. Arias filed an appeal challenging his divorce decree and a related order that refused to undo that decree. When someone appeals to the Nevada Supreme Court, the court requires certain paperwork on a set schedule - a docketing statement (a form that gives the court basic information about the case), a transcript request form (or a certificate explaining that no transcripts are needed), and an opening brief (the written argument explaining why the lower court got it wrong). On October 14, 2024, the court told Mr. Arias when each of those items was due. He missed the deadlines for the docketing statement and the transcript paperwork, so on November 13, 2024, the court issued a follow-up order giving him until November 27, 2024, to file them, and warned that missing the new deadline could mean his appeal would be thrown out. He then filed an informal brief on December 4, 2024, but the court rejected it on December 5 because it did not comply with the rules, and gave him until February 11, 2025, to file a proper one. By the time the court issued this order, Mr. Arias still had not filed the docketing statement, the transcript paperwork, or a compliant informal brief. Concluding that he had abandoned the appeal, the court dismissed it. The dismissal does not address the merits of the divorce decree or the denial of the motion to set it aside.

This case arises from a family-court dispute over a property settlement agreement—the kind of contract that divides property between spouses. One party, Dipesh S. Banker, asked the Court of Appeals to step in before the family court finished its work. He did this by filing a petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition. A writ of mandamus is a court order forcing a lower court to perform a duty the law requires; a writ of prohibition is a court order stopping a lower court from acting beyond its authority. Dipesh's argument was that the family court did not have jurisdiction—that is, legal authority—to enforce the property settlement agreement. The Court of Appeals explained that these writs are "extraordinary remedies," meaning they are granted only in unusual situations and only when a person has no other adequate way to fix the problem. The person asking for the writ carries the burden of showing that this kind of extraordinary intervention is justified. The court declined to intervene for two reasons. First, Dipesh did not include a copy of the property settlement agreement—the very document at the center of his petition—in the materials he submitted. Second, the court found that the family court had not yet made a final decision about whether it had jurisdiction to enforce the agreement. Instead, the family court had only scheduled an evidentiary hearing, saying it wanted to hear evidence about several things, including what the parties intended when they made the agreement, why they chose not to have the agreement merge into the divorce decree, and what they intended about enforcing the agreement's provisions. Because there was no final ruling to review and because the key document was missing, the court concluded that Dipesh had not shown that writ relief was warranted, and it denied the petition.

Ryan Stojack asked a lower court (the family division of the Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County) for access to his minor child's therapy records. The district court denied that request. Stojack then asked the Nevada Court of Appeals for a writ of mandamus — an extraordinary court order compelling a lower court to perform an act the law requires as a duty, or to correct an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion. The Court of Appeals explained that this kind of writ is an extraordinary remedy, and that the appellate court has discretion over whether to even consider such a petition. When the lower court's decision was itself a matter of discretion — as discovery decisions typically are — the person seeking the writ carries a heavy burden. After reviewing the petition and the documents before it, the court concluded that Stojack had not shown that extraordinary intervention was warranted, and it denied the petition. The court also noted the general policy against considering writ petitions that challenge discovery decisions. The order does not discuss the underlying facts of the family case or the merits of the records request in any detail.

This order resolves a procedural fight over how a divorce appeal got started. Renata Popelkova first tried to appeal a mid-case order from August 26, 2024 - the kind of order that ordinarily cannot be appealed on its own (an "interlocutory" order means a ruling made before the case is finished). After the divorce decree was entered on October 23, 2024, she filed an amended notice of appeal that covered both the earlier order and the final decree. Her ex-husband, Howard Miller, then filed his own cross-appeal, which the court clerk mistakenly opened as a separate case. Miller asked the Nevada Supreme Court to throw out Popelkova's appeal. He argued that because her first notice was filed too early, the court never had power over it, and she should have filed a brand-new notice of appeal after the divorce decree rather than "amending" the earlier one. The Nevada Supreme Court disagreed and refused to dismiss. The court explained that Popelkova's premature notice of appeal can be treated as a challenge to the later-entered divorce decree, which is the kind of final judgment that can be appealed. The court also found nothing wrong with her amended notice of appeal: it met the formal requirements, was filed on time, and properly challenged an appealable order. Even if calling it an "amended" notice was technically incorrect, that label alone would not invalidate it. The court also cleaned up a clerical issue: because both spouses are appealing from the same divorce decree, their appeals belong in a single case, not two. The clerk was directed to close Docket No. 89695 and move everything into Docket No. 89247. Popelkova was given until March 25, 2025, to file her opening brief and appendix, with normal cross-appeal briefing rules to follow.

When someone files an appeal with the Nevada Supreme Court, they generally must pay a filing fee or, if they cannot afford it, follow a specific procedure to ask the court to waive the fee (that procedure is set out in a rule called NRAP 24). In this case, James Michael Laity filed an appeal in a family-law matter on December 30, 2024, but did not pay the filing fee. The same day the appeal was docketed, the court sent him a notice giving him 14 days to either pay the fee or show that he had followed the fee-waiver rule. The notice warned that if he did neither, his appeal would be dismissed. According to the court, he did not pay the fee and did not respond to the notice. The court therefore dismissed the appeal. This order does not address the merits of the underlying family-law dispute between the parties.

When someone files an appeal with the Nevada Supreme Court, they have to pay a filing fee and submit a document called a "case appeal statement" (a short form that tells the court basic information about the case being appealed). In this case, the appellant, Stefanie Danielle Chandler, filed her appeal on December 18, 2024 but did not pay the fee or submit the case appeal statement. That same day, the court sent her notices telling her she had 7 days to pay the fee (or show she qualified to proceed without paying it under a specific rule) and to file the case appeal statement. The notices warned that not paying the fee would cause her appeal to be dismissed, and not filing the statement could also lead to dismissal. According to the order, Chandler did not pay the fee, did not file the statement, and did not otherwise respond to the court's notices. Because of that, the court dismissed her appeal. The order does not address the underlying family-court dispute between Chandler and Beecher.

This case involves a fight in a child custody matter. Alisha Rumley asked a higher court - the Court of Appeals - to step in immediately and order the lower court (the family court) to change or stop a ruling. She sought two kinds of extraordinary orders: a writ of mandamus (a court order forcing a lower court to do something it is legally required to do) and a writ of prohibition (a court order stopping a lower court from acting beyond its authority). The specific ruling she was upset about came from a family court judge who had denied her request to "quash service and to dismiss" - in other words, her attempt to throw out the case on the grounds that she had not been properly served with legal papers - and who had also addressed some other issues. The Court of Appeals did not decide whether the family court was right or wrong. Instead, it turned the petition away for a procedural reason: the ruling she was challenging existed only as a "minute order," which is a brief note of what happened in court, not a formal, signed, and file-stamped written order. Under Nevada law, a minute order is not effective for any purpose, so the appeals court said it could not review the decision without a proper written order in hand. The court also said that, even setting aside the missing written order, Rumley had not shown that this kind of extraordinary emergency relief was warranted right now. The court explained that a person asking for a writ carries the burden of showing that such relief is justified, and that whether to even consider a writ petition is within the court's own discretion. Finally, the court addressed why the matter did not need emergency treatment. Rumley had raised a jurisdictional challenge (a claim that the court lacked authority over her, tied to whether she was properly served). The appeals court noted that this challenge was already preserved because she raised it through her motion to quash service - meaning she would not lose the ability to argue it later, even if she keeps appearing before the family court. For those reasons, the court denied the petition "without prejudice," which means Rumley is free to file a new petition later if she obtains a written, file-stamped order and believes it appropriate.

When a person appeals a decision in Nevada, they must file certain paperwork to get the appeal started. One required document is called a "case appeal statement" - a short form that gives the appellate court basic information about the case being appealed. In this case, Mr. Gonzalez filed a notice of appeal but did not include the case appeal statement. The Nevada Supreme Court sent him a notice on December 3, 2024, telling him to file it. When he still had not filed it, the court issued a follow-up order on December 13, 2024, giving him seven more days and warning that failure to comply could result in the appeal being dismissed as abandoned. Mr. Gonzalez did not file the required statement. As a result, the Supreme Court dismissed his appeal without reaching the merits of whatever family-court ruling he was challenging.

This is a one-page order ending an appeal in a family-law case. The person who started the appeal, David Michael Williams, asked the Nevada Supreme Court to dismiss his own appeal. The court agreed and dismissed it. The order does not explain the underlying dispute, the lower court's ruling, or why the appellant decided to drop the appeal. It simply closes out the case at the appellate level.

Michael Martinelli asked a Clark County family court to grant him visitation rights as a nonparent (a person who is not the child's legal parent seeking court-ordered time with the child). The family court denied his petition, and Martinelli, representing himself without a lawyer, appealed that denial to the Nevada Supreme Court. When someone appeals, they must file an "opening brief" - a written document explaining to the appellate court why the lower court got it wrong. The Supreme Court told Martinelli on June 27, 2024, that he had until October 28, 2024, to file either a formal brief or a simpler "Informal Brief Form for Pro Se Parties" designed for people without lawyers. The court warned him that missing the deadline could end his appeal. Martinelli did not file anything by the deadline. On November 7, 2024, the court gave him another 7 days and repeated the warning. He still did not file a brief or contact the court. Because he never explained why the family court's decision should be overturned, the Supreme Court concluded he had abandoned his appeal and dismissed it. Dismissal here means the appeal is over without the Supreme Court ever ruling on whether the family court was right or wrong about the visitation petition.

This is a divorce case. After the trial court entered a decree of divorce, the wife tried to appeal it to the Nevada Supreme Court. Before the appeal could proceed, the Supreme Court noticed two potential problems and asked the wife to explain why the appeal should not be thrown out. The first problem was that the decree did not appear to be a "final judgment." In Nevada, you generally cannot appeal a trial court ruling until the trial court has finished deciding all the issues in the case. Here, the decree had not resolved child custody or child support, so there were still loose ends. The second problem was that the decree itself stated that the parties had agreed to give up their right to appeal. The wife responded that she had not actually agreed to waive that right. But she also appeared to acknowledge that no final judgment had been entered and that the trial court had not taken the special step (under a rule called NRCP 54(b)) that can sometimes make a partial ruling appealable early. Because the decree was not final and no rule or statute allowed an appeal from this kind of partial decree, the Supreme Court ruled it had no jurisdiction (no legal authority) to hear the appeal and dismissed it. The court did not need to decide the separate question about whether the wife had waived her appeal rights. The order also includes an admonishment to the wife's counsel for failing to provide proof that the response to the show-cause order had been served on the husband, who represents himself and is not an electronic filer. The court considered the response anyway in this single instance because the husband had filed a reply.

When someone files an appeal with the Nevada Supreme Court, they must pay a filing fee and submit a document called a "case appeal statement" - a short summary of the case identifying the parties, the lower-court ruling being appealed, and similar basic information. If a person cannot afford the fee, there is a separate procedure to ask the court to waive it. David Morris filed an appeal on October 24, 2024, but did not pay the filing fee and did not include the case appeal statement. The same day, the court sent him notices telling him he had seven days to either pay the fee (or show he qualified for a waiver) and to file the case appeal statement. The notices warned him that not paying the fee would cause his appeal to be dismissed, and that not filing the case appeal statement could also lead to dismissal. Morris did not pay the fee, did not file the case appeal statement, and did not otherwise respond to the court's notices. Because of that, the court dismissed his appeal without reaching the merits of whatever underlying family-law issue he wanted to challenge.

When someone files an appeal with the Nevada Supreme Court, they generally must pay a filing fee or, if they cannot afford it, follow a specific procedure to ask the court to waive the fee. In this case, the appellant did neither. After the appeal was docketed on October 9, 2024, the court sent a notice the same day telling the appellant to pay the filing fee or show that she had complied with the rule allowing indigent litigants to proceed without paying (NRAP 24) within 14 days. The notice warned that if she did not comply, her appeal would be dismissed. The appellant did not pay the fee and did not respond to the notice. Because of that, the Nevada Supreme Court dismissed the appeal without reaching the merits of the underlying family-law dispute.

When a person files an appeal in Nevada, the rules require them to send a copy of the notice of appeal to the other parties and to file paperwork with the court showing that they did so. That paperwork is called "proof of service." In this case, Keon Mays filed an appeal against McKenna Mays, but did not include proof of service with the notice of appeal. The Nevada Supreme Court told him on September 13, 2024, that he had 14 days to fix the problem, and warned him that the appeal could be dismissed if he did not. When he still had not responded, the court issued a second order on October 7, 2024, giving him another 14 days and again warning that the appeal would be dismissed if he did not comply. He still did not file the required document. As a result, the court dismissed the appeal without addressing any of the underlying family-law issues.

This is a short procedural order, not a ruling on the merits of any family-law dispute. Maria Brotherson filed an appeal from a final judgment in a family-court case in Clark County. She represented herself. When someone files an appeal in Nevada, the Supreme Court clerk requires certain paperwork early in the process - including a "docketing statement" (a form summarizing the appeal) and either a request for transcripts of the lower-court proceedings or a certificate stating no transcripts will be requested. On September 6, 2024, the clerk sent Brotherson a notice telling her to file these documents within set deadlines. She did not. The court then issued a second order on October 3, 2024, giving her until October 10, 2024, to file the missing documents and warning that, if she did not, the appeal could be dismissed. She still did not file them. Concluding that she had abandoned her appeal, the court dismissed it. The order does not address the underlying family-law issues.

This is a short administrative order, not a ruling on the merits of any underlying dispute over parental rights. When someone files an appeal with the Nevada Supreme Court, they generally must pay a filing fee or, if they cannot afford it, follow a specific procedure to ask the court to waive that fee (governed by a rule called NRAP 24). In this case, the appellant filed her appeal on September 17, 2024, but did not pay the filing fee. The court told her she had 14 days either to pay or to show she qualified for a fee waiver, and warned that if she did neither, her appeal would be thrown out. She did not respond. Because of that, the court dismissed the appeal. The court did not consider, and this order does not decide, anything about the parental-rights matter itself.

A party in a Washoe County family-court case tried to appeal a mid-case order. That order required compliance with a discovery rule (NRCP 16.205, which governs disclosures in family-law matters) and said the other side would get attorney fees, with the dollar amount to be set later. The Nevada Supreme Court did not reach the merits. Instead, it explained that it can only hear appeals that a statute or court rule specifically allows. Because no statute or rule permits an appeal from the kind of mid-case order at issue here, the court concluded it had no power (no jurisdiction) to consider the appeal and dismissed it.

This is a short procedural order, not a ruling on the merits of any family-law dispute. When someone appeals to the Nevada Supreme Court, they must file paperwork called a "docketing statement" that gives the court basic information about the case. The rules give a deadline for filing it. In this case, the court referred the appeal to its settlement program on August 21, 2024, and told appellant Cesar Ivan Torres that he had 21 days to file the docketing statement. He did not. On September 12, 2024, the court sent a second notice giving him 7 more days and warning that not complying could lead to sanctions, including throwing out the appeal. He still did not file the statement. As a result, the court dismissed the appeal. The underlying family-court decision therefore stands, because the appeal never moved forward.

When someone files an appeal with the Nevada Supreme Court, the court charges a filing fee. If the person filing cannot afford the fee, there is a separate procedure to ask the court to waive it. In this case, the appellant, David Michael Williams, filed his appeal but did not pay the fee and did not file the paperwork needed to have the fee waived. The same day the appeal was docketed, the court sent a notice giving him 7 days either to pay the fee or to follow the waiver procedure. The notice warned that if he did neither, his appeal would be thrown out. He did not respond. The court therefore dismissed the appeal. This is a procedural dismissal; the court did not rule on any of the underlying issues in the family-law dispute.

When someone files an appeal with the Nevada Supreme Court, they must either pay a filing fee or apply to proceed without paying the fee because of financial hardship. In this family-law case, Alejandro Angel Juan filed an appeal but did not pay the fee. The court sent him a notice giving him 14 days to either pay or show that he qualified to proceed without paying. According to the order, Juan did not respond. Because the fee was not paid and no qualifying paperwork was submitted, the court dismissed the appeal. The order does not address the merits of the underlying family-law dispute between Juan and Nancy Salazar.

Richard Candelaria and Michael Kelly met in 1991 and began a long-term relationship. They moved in together that November, exchanged rings in July 1992, and lived together for years. But they could not legally marry in Nevada because, at the time, Nevada law and later the Nevada Constitution prohibited same-sex marriage. When California legalized same-sex marriage in 2008, the couple traveled there and formally married. In 2020, Michael filed for divorce. The fight in this case is about how to divide two assets: Michael's 401(k) retirement account (opened in 1984 with no contributions after 2008) and shares of stock he received through his job between 1996 and 2004. Under Nevada community property rules, assets acquired during marriage are generally split, but assets acquired before marriage stay with the spouse who owns them. So the question is: when did the marriage start? Michael said the marriage began in 2008, when they actually wed in California. Richard said the marriage should be treated as starting in November 1991 or July 1992, because they would have married then if Nevada had not unconstitutionally banned same-sex marriage. The district court sided with Michael and used 2008 as the marriage date, treating the 401(k) and stock as Michael's separate property. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed. The court explained two related but distinct points. First, the U.S. Supreme Court's 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which established that same-sex couples have the right to marry and that states must recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, applies retroactively. So Nevada must recognize the couple's 2008 California marriage even though Nevada did not recognize such marriages in 2008. That part favored Richard, in the sense that the marriage is treated as valid from 2008 forward. Second, however, Obergefell does not require courts to pretend a marriage existed before a couple actually got married. Nevada does not recognize "common-law marriage" -- the idea that a couple who lives together long enough and acts married is legally married without a ceremony. A 1943 Nevada statute bans common-law marriage, and that ban applies to everyone regardless of sexual orientation. Richard asked the court to apply a multi-factor "but-for" test (borrowed from an Oregon case) to decide whether the couple would have married earlier had they been allowed to. The court concluded that doing so would amount to recognizing a common-law marriage, which Nevada law forbids. The court said it had no power to carve out a judicial exception to the statutory ban, especially since Richard did not argue that the ban itself was unconstitutional. The practical result: the marriage is dated from the 2008 California ceremony, and assets Michael acquired before then remain his separate property.

A wife sued her husband for damages, claiming he negligently fired a gun and the bullet injured her. The trial court dismissed her complaint, and she appealed. The only question was whether a wife can sue her husband for personal injuries caused by his negligence. Under the old common law, a wife could not sue her husband in tort (for a wrong like a personal injury) at all. The wife admitted this but argued that a Nevada statute (NRS 12.020) had changed the rule. The Nevada Supreme Court disagreed. That statute simply lets a married woman sue on her own when a case concerns her separate property or her homestead, or when the case is between her and her husband - it is a procedural rule about who may bring suit, not a rule creating a new right to sue a spouse for a personal injury. A separate 1949 law (NRS 41.170) let her sue on her own for injuries to her person, but that just restated the existing common-law rule and did not create a new claim against her husband. The court noted that most states, even with similar statutes, hold that a wife cannot sue her husband for a personal injury, while a minority hold the opposite. Nevada adopted the majority rule. It pointed out that Nevada had borrowed this statute from California in 1911, and that California's highest court had already interpreted the identical language as not permitting spouses to sue each other for personal torts - so Nevada was presumed to have adopted that interpretation too. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that a wife cannot sue her husband for a personal tort in Nevada unless a statute clearly permits it, and neither statute did.