Fowler v. Am. Textile Maint. Co.

Nevada Supreme Court

Fowler v. Am. Textile Maint. Co.

DecidedJune 16, 2022

Docket84273

StatusPublished

This text of Fowler v. Am. Textile Maint. Co. (Fowler v. Am. Textile Maint. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fowler v. Am. Textile Maint. Co., (Neb. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

DENISE JAN FOWLER, No. 84273 Appellant, vs. AMERICAN TEXTILE MAINTENANCE FILED COMPANY, JUN 1 6 2022 Res iondent. ELIZABETH A. BROWN CLERK OF SUPREME COURT BY DEPU CLERK

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

This is an appeal from an order granting a motion to enforce a writ of garnishment. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Mark R. Denton, Judge. Appellant proposed in the docketing statement that the order is appealable as a special order after final judgment. This court noted that it was not clear how the writ of garnishment alters or affects the rights and obligations of the parties arising from the underlying foreign judgment and directed appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Gumm v. Mainor, 118 Nev. 912, 920, 59 P.3d 1220, 1225 (2002) (holding that, to be appealable under NRAP 3A(b)(2), a special order made after final judgment "must be an order affecting the rights of some party to the action, growing out of the judgment previously entered"). Appellant argues that the district court applied the wrong standards in holding that respondent is entitled to enforce the writ of garnishment against her and cites NRS 31.460, providing for an appeal from any final judgment in a garnishment proceeding. The final judgment was the issuance of the writ of execution. Appellant fails to demonstrate that the order alters the rights and obligations of the parties arising from SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A .44141P the issuance of the writ. An order merely enforcing a prior appealable order does not affect the rights of a party growing out of the final judgment and is not appealable as a special order after final judgment. See Gumm at 912, 920, 59 P.3d at 1225. This court lacks jurisdiction, and ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.

J. Hardesty

J. Stiglich

Herndon

cc: Hon. Mark R. Denton, District Judge Charles K. Hauser, Settlement Judge Benjamin B. Childs Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A mgiDir. 2 .arinr?"7-',-4,67:777: "747-47:

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

DENISE JAN FOWLER, No. 84273 Appellant, vs. AMERICAN TEXTILE MAINTENANCE FILED COMPANY, JUN 1 6 2022 Res iondent. ELIZABETH A. BROWN CLERK OF SUPREME COURT BY DEPU CLERK

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

This is an appeal from an order granting a motion to enforce a writ of garnishment. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Mark R. Denton, Judge. Appellant proposed in the docketing statement that the order is appealable as a special order after final judgment. This court noted that it was not clear how the writ of garnishment alters or affects the rights and obligations of the parties arising from the underlying foreign judgment and directed appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Gumm v. Mainor, 118 Nev. 912, 920, 59 P.3d 1220, 1225 (2002) (holding that, to be appealable under NRAP 3A(b)(2), a special order made after final judgment "must be an order affecting the rights of some party to the action, growing out of the judgment previously entered"). Appellant argues that the district court applied the wrong standards in holding that respondent is entitled to enforce the writ of garnishment against her and cites NRS 31.460, providing for an appeal from any final judgment in a garnishment proceeding. The final judgment was the issuance of the writ of execution. Appellant fails to demonstrate that the order alters the rights and obligations of the parties arising from SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A .44141P the issuance of the writ. An order merely enforcing a prior appealable order does not affect the rights of a party growing out of the final judgment and is not appealable as a special order after final judgment. See Gumm at 912, 920, 59 P.3d at 1225. This court lacks jurisdiction, and ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.

J. Hardesty

J. Stiglich

Herndon

cc: Hon. Mark R. Denton, District Judge Charles K. Hauser, Settlement Judge Benjamin B. Childs Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A mgiDir. 2 .arinr?"7-',-4,67:777: "747-47:

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Fowler v. Am. Textile Maint. Co., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fowler-v-am-textile-maint-co-nev-2022.

Opinion

J. Hardesty

J. Stiglich

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack