Opinion
No. 80641
03-26-2020
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 an order granting a motion for an order to show cause why appellant should not be held in contempt, to compel compliance with decree of divorce, and for an award of attorney fees and costs. 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 judgment or order designated in the notice of appeal is not substantively appealable. See NRAP 3A(b). This court has jurisdiction to consider an appeal only when the appeal is authorized by statute or court rule. Taylor Constr. Co. v. Hilton Hotels , 100 Nev. 207, 678 P.2d 1152 (1984). No statute or court rule provides for an appeal from an order finding a party in contempt, compelling compliance with a divorce decree and a related award of attorney fees. See Pengilly v. Rancho Santa Fe Homeowners Ass’n, 116 Nev. 646, 649, 5 P.3d 569, 671 (2000) (recognizing that a contempt order entered in an ancillary proceeding is not appealable); compare Vaile v. Vaile, 133 Nev. 213, 217, 396 P.3d 791, 794 (2017) ; and Lewis v. Lewis, 132 Nev. 453, 373 P.3d 878 (2016). To the extent appellant challenges the award of attorney fees and costs, the appeal is premature because the district court has directed respondent to submit a memorandum of fees. Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction and
ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.