Holmes Vs. Holmes

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

WILBERT ROY HOLMES, No. 83321 Appellant,

vs. MI= CAPUCINE YOLANDA HOLMES,

Respondent. AUG 1 L 2021 À. BROWN

CLE PREME BY

DEPUTY CLERK

01?DER DISMISSING APPEAL

This is a pro se appeal from the district court's minute order resolving various motions. Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Court Division, Clark County; Heidi Almase, Judge.

Initial review of the notice of appeal and documents before this court reveals a jurisdictional defect. The district court's minute order is not effective and cannot be appealed. See State, Div. of Child & Family Servs. 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."); Rust v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 103 Nev. 686, 689, 747 P.2d 1380, 1382 (1987) (stating that the district court's minute order is ineffective and cannot be appealed). To the extent, if any that appellant appeals from the August 10, 2021, order granting motion for sanctions, that order likewise cannot be appealed. The order merely directs respondent's attorney to file a memorandum of fees and costs and indicates that the court will thereafter enter an order awarding the fees and costs as a sanction. Because the order does not actually provide for an award of fees and costs, this appeal is premature as SUPREME COURT OP NEVADA

tth I947A aligg9D 2,1 - 21-5 11 to that order. See NRAP 3A(b)(8). Accordingly, it appears that this court lacks jurisdiction, and this court.

ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.

,

Stiglich Silver

cc: Hon. Heidi Almase, District Judge, Family Court Division Wilbert Roy Holmes Heaton Fontano, Ltd. Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT Of NEVADA

(01 1947A atetilx,

2

e-4,