MARIO ACCOMANDO v. GEORGANN ROSE ACCOMANDO (2023)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

This is a pro se appeal from a district court order after a hearing on an order to show cause finding appellant in contempt for failing to comply with the provisions of the parties’ divorce decree and ordering appellant to comply. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; David S. Gibson, Jr., Judge.

Review of the docketing statement and documents before this court reveals a jurisdictional defect. Specifically, the challenged order is not substantively appealable. The final judgment in this matter was the decree of divorce, entered on June 29, 2022. See Lee v. GNLV Corp., 116 Nev. 424, 426, 996 P.2d 416, 417 (2000) (defining a final judgment). The challenged order finds appellant in contempt, sanctions him for failing to comply with the provisions of the parties’ divorce decree, and directs him to comply with the provisions of the divorce decree.

No statute or court rule allows an appeal from an order finding a party in contempt, imposing sanctions, and ordering a party to comply with the provisions of the divorce decree. Pengilly v. Rancho Santa Fe Homeowners Ass'n, 116 Nev. 646, 649, 5 P.3d 569, 671 (2000) (recognizing that a contempt order entered in an ancillary proceeding is not appealable); Brown v. MHC Stagecoach, LLC, 129 Nev. 343, 345, 301 P.3d 850, 851 (2013) (this court “may only consider appeals authorized by statute or court rule”). This court lacks jurisdiction and

ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.

Cadish, J.

Pickering, J.

Bell, J.