Ludlow v. Ludlow (Child Custody)

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: April 11, 2014
• Docket: 61777
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

contends that appellant admitted below that the parties' reached a settlement agreement, requested that the district court enforce the agreement, and did not ask the court for an evidentiary hearing or trial. This court does not need to consider any argument that is unsupported by legal authority. Sengel v. IGT, 116 Nev. 565, 573, 2 P.3d 258, 263 (2000); see also Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Rest., 122 Nev. 317, 330 n.38, 130 P.3d 1280, 1288 n.38 (2006). In the fast track statement, appellant fails to cite any authority to support his arguments. In addition, appellant does not identify the settlement terms that he claims were disputed, and thus, we are unable to adequately evaluate his argument. Moreover, the record supports respondent's contention that appellant did not request a trial in the district court. As appellant has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to relief, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

-4rbstXt J. Parraguirre Saitta

cc: Hon. Jennifer Elliott, District Judge, Family Court Division Robert E. Gaston, Settlement Judge Sterling Law, LLC Roberts Stoffel Family Law Group Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A