FOUTZ v. JONES FOUTZ (2020)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Brent Foutz appeals from a decree of divorce. Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Court Division, Clark County; T. Arthur Ritchie, Jr., Judge.

Respondent Gwendolyn Ruth Jones-Foutz filed a complaint for divorce and then a motion for exclusive possession of the home where she and Brent resided. Brent answered the complaint but did not oppose the motion. After a hearing on the matter and no opposition having been filed, the court granted the motion. Ultimately, the court entered a decree of divorce, finding that the parties were incompatible, there were no contested issues, and no community assets or debts to divide. This appeal followed.

On appeal, while Brent provides a few summary statements regarding the proceedings below, he fails to provide any cogent argument regarding the district court's decision or to even identify any purported errors in the divorce decree. See Edwards v. Emperors Garden Rest., 122 Nev. 317, 330 n.38, 130 P.3d 1280, 1288 n.38 (2006) (stating that the appellate courts need not consider issues that are not supported by cogent argument). Although Brent does allege that the district court did not permit him to speak at some hearings, including the hearing wherein the district court granted the divorce, that assertion is belied by the transcript of the hearing, which shows that he was allowed to speak and was asked questions by the judge. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Brent has failed to present a basis for relief and therefore, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.¹

FOOTNOTES

1.   To the extent that Brent raised issues that are not specifically addressed herein, we have considered them and conclude they do not present a basis for relief.