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
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.
2
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
IQ 1947A