ORDER DENYING PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF PROHIBITION 

Docket No. 63432 is an original petition for a writ of 

prohibition challenging certain provisions in a divorce decree and an order 

that directs the payment of child support arrears, spousal support, and 

attorney and expert fees from the Eric L. Nelson Nevada Trust. Docket 

No. 63545 is an original petition for a writ of prohibition challenging 

provisions in the divorce decree that directed transfer of certain assets 

from the Eric L. Nelson Nevada Trust to equalize the community property 

estate. 

A writ of prohibition is available when a district court acts 

without or in excess of its jurisdiction. NRS 34.320; State v. Eighth 

Judicial Dist. Court, 118 Nev. 140, 146-47, 42 P.3d 233, 237 (2002). 

Prohibition is an extraordinary remedy, and whether a petition for 

extraordinary relief will be considered is solely within our discretion. 

Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 

(1991). It is petitioner's burden to demonstrate that this court's 

extraordinary intervention is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. 

Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Writ relief is generally 

not available when the petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate 

remedy at law. See NRS 34.330; Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial 

Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). 

Petitioner maintains that extraordinary relief is appropriate 

because an adequate legal remedy is not currently available. Specifically, 

petitioner asserts that an appeal cannot immediately be taken from the 

divorce decree because the district court has not disposed of all of the 

assets and the divorce decree is not a final judgment. At the time these 

writ petitions were filed, this court temporarily stayed portions of the 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A 
divorce decree and a district court order directing payment of certain 

sums, and directed answers to the petitions. 

Recent motions to dissolve this court's temporary stays filed 

by real parties in interest Lynita S. Nelson and the LSN Nevada Trust 

and petitioners' oppositions indicate that a trial is scheduled for May 30, 

2014, on the last remaining marital asset. A divorce decree that finally 

resolves all issues pertaining to the dissolution of the parties' marriage, 

including the division of property, is appealable as a final judgment. See 

Lee v. GNLV Corp., 116 Nev. 424, 426, 996 P.2d 416, 417 (2000) 

(recognizing that a final judgment is one that disposes of all issues 

presented and leaves nothing for the court's future consideration, except 

for certain post-judgment issues). The right to appeal is generally 

considered an adequate legal remedy that precludes extraordinary relief. 

Int'l Game Tech., 124 Nev. at 197, 179 P.3d at 558. Here, an appeal from 

the final divorce decree, once it is entered, is an adequate remedy in the 

ordinary course of the law and is the more appropriate vehicle to challenge 

the issues raised by these writ petitions. 

Additionally, the parties' recent filings indicate that the 

district court entered an injunction order in September 2013, which 

enjoins the payment of the sums at issue in Docket No. 63432 and directs 

placement of the funds in a blocked account, and enjoins the Eric L. 

Nelson Nevada Trust from encumbering or disposing of the property at 

issue in Docket No. 63545. Thus, the district court has, at least in part, 

enjoined transfer of the assets at issue in these petitions. To the extent 

that any party seeks an injunction that is not addressed by the district 

court order currently in effect, such relief may be sought in the district 

court. Under these circumstances, and given the availability of an appeal 

3 
J. 

Hardesty 

Ckut 

Cherry 

J. 

J. 

from the final judgment, we conclude that our intervention by 

extraordinary writ relief is not warranted. Accordingly, we deny these 

petitions for writs of prohibitions without prejudice to the right of any 

aggrieved party to file an appeal from the final judgment. We vacate all 

orders granting temporary stays in these petitions. 

It is so ORDERED.' 

cc: Hon. Frank P. Sullivan, District Judge, Family Court Division 

Solomon Dwiggins & Freer 

Radford J. Smith, Chtd. 

Larry Bertsch 

Dickerson Law Group 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

'In light of this order, we deny as moot the motions for stay and 

motions for a ruling on and/or to dissolve temporary stays filed in both 

cases. We further deny as moot the July 23, 2013, motion for an extension 

of time to file a reply in Docket No. 63432 and the July 29, 2013, request 

for a ruling in Docket No. 63545. Finally, we grant the May 15, 2014, 

request for an extension of time to file a reply in Docket No. 63432, and we 

have considered the reply incorporated in that request. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 4 

(0) 1947A