From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Holmes v. Holmes

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
Feb 4, 2020
456 P.3d 599 (Nev. 2020)

Opinion

No. 80465

02-04-2020

Wilbert Roy HOLMES, Appellant, v. Capucine Yolanda HOLMES, Respondent.

Wilbert Roy Holmes Heaton Fontano, Ltd.


Wilbert Roy Holmes

Heaton Fontano, Ltd.

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

This is a pro se appeal from a decision denying rehearing. Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Court Division, Clark County; Rena G. Hughes, Judge.

Review of the documents submitted to this court pursuant to NRAP 3(g) reveals a jurisdictional defect. Specifically, the district court's oral decision is not effective and cannot be appealed. See State, Div. of Child and Family Serv's v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 445, 454, 92 P.3d 1239, 1245 (2004) ("[D]ispositional court orders that are not administrative in nature, but deal with the procedural posture or merits of the underlying controversy, must be written, signed, and filed before they become effective"). To date, it does not appear that the district court has entered a written order memorializing its decision. Moreover, to the extent the district court’s decision denies a motion for reconsideration, an order denying a motion for reconsideration is not substantively appealable. See Alvis v. State, Gaming Control Bd., 99 Nev. 184, 186, 660 P.2d 980, 981 (1983) (holding that an order denying rehearing is not appealable), disapproved of on other grounds by AA Primo Builders, LLC v. Washington, 126 Nev. 578, 585, 245 P.3d 1190, 1195 (2010). Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction and

ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.


Summaries of

Holmes v. Holmes

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
Feb 4, 2020
456 P.3d 599 (Nev. 2020)
Case details for

Holmes v. Holmes

Case Details

Full title:WILBERT ROY HOLMES, Appellant, v. CAPUCINE YOLANDA HOLMES, Respondent.

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

Date published: Feb 4, 2020

Citations

456 P.3d 599 (Nev. 2020)