VILLAR V. HONG (FAMILY)

Key holdings

• -The Nevada Supreme Court "may only consider appeals authorized by statute or court rule."
• -"[T]he burden rests squarely upon the shoulders of a party seeking to invoke our jurisdiction to establish, to our satisfaction, that this court does in fact have jurisdiction."
• -Because appellant failed to show the challenged interlocutory order in the ongoing divorce proceeding is substantively appealable under NRAP 3A(b), the court lacks jurisdiction and the appeal must be dismissed.

Practitioner summary

The supreme court dismissed this pro se appeal on jurisdictional grounds without reaching the merits. The court identified a jurisdictional defect: appellant failed to show that the challenged district court order — denying motions for a discovery protective order, for bifurcation under NRCP 42(b), to strike, and for NRCP 11 sanctions, and requiring appellant to fund a forensic accountant's retainer and pay interim attorney fees in an ongoing divorce proceeding — is substantively appealable. The court applied its settled appellate-jurisdiction framework. It cited NRAP 3A(b) and Brown v. MHC Stagecoach, LLC, 129 Nev. 343, 345, 301 P.3d 850, 851 (2013), for the proposition that this court "may only consider appeals authorized by statute or court rule," and Moran v. Bonneville Square Assocs., 117 Nev. 525, 527, 25 P.3d 898, 899 (2001), for the rule that "[T]he burden rests squarely upon the shoulders of a party seeking to invoke our jurisdiction to establish, to our satisfaction, that this court does in fact have jurisdiction." Because appellant did not carry that burden, the court concluded it lacks jurisdiction and ordered the appeal dismissed. The panel consisted of Justices Stiglich, Cadish, and Lee. The opinion does not address the substance of any of the underlying motions or the interim fee and retainer awards.

In plain language

This case arises from an ongoing divorce between Jorge Benjamin Villar and Angela Hong. During the divorce litigation, the district court judge denied several requests Villar had made — including requests to limit discovery (the process by which each side gathers evidence), to split the case into separate phases, to strike material from the record, and to punish the other side with sanctions. The judge also ordered Villar to pay for a forensic accountant's retainer and to pay some of the other side's attorney fees while the case was still pending. Villar, representing himself without a lawyer, appealed that order to the Nevada Supreme Court. The Supreme Court did not consider whether the district court's rulings were right or wrong. Instead, it dismissed the appeal because of a "jurisdictional defect" — meaning the court concluded it had no legal authority to hear the appeal at all. In Nevada, an appeals court can only hear appeals that a statute or court rule specifically authorizes, and it is the appealing party's job to show that the order being challenged is the kind of order that can be appealed. The court held that Villar had not made that showing, so the appeal was dismissed. The underlying divorce case remains in the district court; the opinion does not address the merits of any of the district court's rulings.

Counsel of record

Counsel is shown when the opinion or the court's docket names it.