Full text
In Re: Guardianship Of Brown
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
IN THE MATTER OF THE No. 82935 GUARDIANSHIP OF THE PERSON AND ESTATE OF: MAE R. BROWN, ADULT PROPOSED PROTECTED PERSON. FILED SHAWNTINA BROWN-PALMORE, FEB 0 3 2022 Appellant, EUZABEIN A. BROWN CLEFUS)F 7PREME COURT vs. s SY DEPUlY cR MAE R. BROWN; AND TYRESE BROWN, Respondents.
ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
This is an appeal from an order dismissing appellant's petition for appointment of a temporary guardian. Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Court Division, Clark County; Linda Marquis, Judge. Included in the docketing statement in this appeal is a district court order of "Voluntary Dismissal," indicating that appellant has voluntarily dismissed the action because respondent Mae R. Brown, the proposed protected person in this matter, has died. Accordingly, this court directed appellant to show cause why the appeal is not moot. Appellant has responded and respondents have filed a reply. This court has jurisdiction to resolve actual controversies, not to render advisory opinions or declare principles of law that cannot affect the cases before it. Personhood Nevada v. Bristol, 126 Nev. 599, 602, 245 P.3d 572. 574 (2010). Because Mae has passed away, even if appellant were successful with this appeal, the guardianship cannot be reopened and appellant cannot file a new petition. There is no relief for this court to SUPREME COURT OF provide in a guardianship proceeding. Appellant's proposal that the issues NEVADA
101 1947A .1414Dip .7-03 q 1
— 2 —
are capable of repetition yet evading review falls short of the scope of an exception to the mootness doctrine. See In re Guardianship of L.S. & H.S., 120 Nev. 157, 161, 87 P.3d 521, 524 (2004) (holding that the mootness exception applies only in "exceptional circumstances," and that the issue tl must be too short in its duration to be fully litigated prior to its natural expiration, and a reasonable expectation must exist that the same complaining party will suffer the harm again."). Appellant's claims appear to fall more properly within the purview of a probate proceeding. In addition, the district court dismissed the petition without prejudice. This court has held that an order dismissing a guardianship petition with leave to amend is an interlocutory, nonappealable order. See Matter of Guardianship of Rubin, 137 Nev. Adv. Op. 27, 491 P.3d 1, 4 (2021), citing Bergenfield v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 131 Nev. 683, 685, 354 P.3d 1282, 1284 (2015) (holding that "a district court order dismissing a complaint with leave to amend is not final and appealable"). This court lacks jurisdiction, and ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.'
, J. Hardesty
Rie4C4-° , J. J. Stiglich Herndon
lAppellant's motion to strike respondents reply to the order to show cause is denied.
cc: Hon. Linda Marquis, District Judge, Family Court Division Israel Kunin, Settlement Judge Bowen Law Offices The Law Offices of Frank J. Toti, Esq. Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada, Inc. Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA