Rockwell v. Rockwell
This text of 640 P.2d 1318 (Rockwell v. Rockwell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
OPINION
On November 5, 1981, this court issued an order giving respondent thirty days in which to engage counsel and sixty [81]*81days 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.1
Reversed and remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
640 P.2d 1318, 98 Nev. 80, 1982 Nev. LEXIS 393, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rockwell-v-rockwell-nev-1982.