From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rockwell v. Rockwell

Supreme Court of Nevada
Feb 25, 1982
640 P.2d 1318 (Nev. 1982)

Opinion

No. 13334

February 25, 1982

Appeal from judgment, Fourth Judicial District Court, Elko County; Joseph O. McDaniel, Judge.

A. Grant Gerber, Elko, for Appellant.

Norman M. Rockwell, in proper person.


OPINION


On November 5, 1981, this court issued an order giving respondent thirty days in which to engage counsel and sixty days in which to submit his answering brief. We informed respondent that failure to submit such a brief might result in our finding a confession of error under NRAP 31(c).

No response to the order followed, and no answering brief has been filed. On January 18, 1982, appellant filed a second motion requesting us to treat respondent's failure to file a brief as a confession of error. The motion is unopposed.

Cause appearing, we grant appellant's motion for a finding of confession of error under NRAP 31(c). See Knapp v. Lemieux, 97 Nev. 450, 634 P.2d 454 (1981). The judgment is reversed insofar as it is based upon findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning appellant's alleged fraudulent intent in entering into the marriage. This case is remanded for a redistribution of the parties' property.

That portion of the judgment which dissolves the marriage of the parties has not been challenged in this appeal, and shall not be affected by this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.


Summaries of

Rockwell v. Rockwell

Supreme Court of Nevada
Feb 25, 1982
640 P.2d 1318 (Nev. 1982)
Case details for

Rockwell v. Rockwell

Case Details

Full title:BRIGITT ROCKWELL, APPELLANT, v. NORMAN M. ROCKWELL, RESPONDENT

Court:Supreme Court of Nevada

Date published: Feb 25, 1982

Citations

640 P.2d 1318 (Nev. 1982)
640 P.2d 1318

Citing Cases

Walport v. Walport

We choose to treat respondent's conduct as a confession of error. NRAP 31(c); Rockwell v. Rockwell, 98 Nev.…

Smith v. Smith

Cause appearing, we elect to treat respondent's conduct as a confession of error. E.g., Walport v. Walport,…