Court of Appeals:

Holmes v. Miller, No. 83902-COA, Order Dismissing Appeal in Part and Affirming in Part (Unpublished Disposition, December 27, 2022)

Wilbert Holmes and Capucine Yolanda Holmes were divorced in June 2017. Wilbert filed numerous actions against Capucine and her associates, making various allegations, and was declared a vexatious litigant.

Wilbert filed a complaint against Capucine and others again alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court granted Capucine’s motion for summary judgment, and Wilbert appealed.

The Court of Appeals affirmed.  As to Wilbert’s challenge to the district court’s grant of summary judgment, the order is not a final judgment adjudicating all parties’ rights and liabilities, as there remain pending claims against other defendants below and the district court did not certify its summary judgment as final pursuant to NRCP 54(b), so the COA only addressed the portion of the order granting injunctive relief.

Wilbert failed to offer any cogent argument challenging the basis of the district court’s order, and therefore the district court’s grant of injunctive relief was affirmed.


Brofman v. Fiore, No. 83865-COA and 83807-COA, Order Dismissing Appeal in Part and Affirming in Part, and Dismissing Appeal (Unpublished Disposition, May 15, 2023)

Douglas Brofman and Gina Fiore were never married, but have one minor child together, born in 2015. During district court proceedings, Brofman was denied leave to relocate to Cleveland, Ohio, with the child, and the parties were awarded joint legal and physical custody; the district court directed that the child attend the school that Fiore was zoned for, and required Fiore to pay child support to Brofman.

Thereafter, several additional issues arose between the parties, which they extensively litigated and the district court eventually entered three separate orders. Brofman filed the appeal in Docket No. 83807-COA to challenge the custody and support decree, the first order, and second order. Brofman brought another appeal in Docket No. 83865-COA to challenge the third order.

The Court of Appeals affirmed all orders.  The school choice issue was one of the main issues dealt with in the custody and support decree. The COA found that Brofman failed to demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion by resolving the issue without conducting a post-trial evidentiary hearing.

For the first order, the Court of Appeals concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal with respect to the district court awarding Fiore make-up parenting time with the child, and therefore dismissed that appeal.

For the second order, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision to deny Brofman’s motion for reconsideration; the portion of the appeal that sought reversal of the injunctive relief order were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.  The appeal of the third order dealing with a passport application, reallocation of fees, and medical decisions was likewise dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.


Sims v. Sims, No. 84960-COA, Order of Affirmance (Unpublished Disposition, May 18, 2023)

Monica and Stephen Sims were married, and reached a settlement. The district court entered a decree of divorce consistent with the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement. Monica then filed a motion for reconsideration in which she argued that the decree was unfair to her for a number of reasons including allegations of: Stephen’s out-of-court conduct, misrepresentations of his finances, that the parties’ settlement conference was conducted improperly, and that the attorney representing her was ineffective. The district court denied reconsideration, and Monica appealed.

The Court of Appeals affirmed, stating that the party seeking reconsideration bears the burden of demonstrating that it is warranted. Monica argued that the district court was biased against her, but the Court of Appeals presumes that district court judges are unbiased under Rivero v. Rivero, 125 Nev. 410, 439, 216 P.3d 213, 233 (2009). Monica generally failed to show any evidence from the record to establish her appellate arguments.

Marshal S. Willick