Newman Vs. Newman (Child Custody)

Nevada Supreme Court

Newman Vs. Newman (Child Custody)

DecidedJanuary 16, 2020

Docket79800

StatusPublished

This text of Newman Vs. Newman (Child Custody) (Newman Vs. Newman (Child Custody)) 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

Newman Vs. Newman (Child Custody), (Neb. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

CHARLES ADAM NEWMAN, No. 79800 Appellant, vs. LYNDA ELIZABETH NEWMAN, Respondent.

JAN i 1020 ELIZABET A. CLERK OF ME, COURT sr 5-Yo-t-A-nt,SA6 DEPLIPc

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL This is a pro se appeal from a district court order regarding a motion for order to show cause, motion to strike, and countermotion for sanctions; and an order regarding a memorandum of fees and costs. Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Court Division, Clark County; Rena G. Hughes, Judge. Review of the notice of appeal and documents before this court reveals jurisdictional defects. First, it appears that the notice of appeal from the order regarding motion for order to show cause was untimely filed. Notice of entry of the order was served on July 22, 2019. However, appellant did not file the notice of appeal in the district court until October 4, 2019, well after the 30-day appeal period provided in NRAP 4(a)(1). An untimely notice of appeal fails to vest jurisdiction in this court. See Healy v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft, 103 Nev. 329, 741 P.2d 432 (1987). Second, the challenged order regarding fees and costs does not appear to be substantively appealable. NRAP 3A(b)(8) permits an appeal from a special order after final judgment, which is an order that affects the rights of any party arising from the final judgment. Gumm v. Mainor, 118 SUPREME COURT Of NEVADA

(0) 1947A 4W). o -oat ci Lai lilt= EASIMIllak Atli= Nev. 912, 59 P.3d 1220 (2002). Here, the challenged order awards fees and costs as sanctions related to appellant's filing of a motion for order to show cause, and does not affect the rights of the parties arising from the decree of divorce. Thus, the order is not appealable as a special order after final judgment, and no other statute or court rule appears to authorize an appeal from this order. See Brown v. MHC Stagecoach, LLC, 129 Nev. 343, 345, 301 P.3d 850, 851 (2013) (this court "may only consider appeals authorized by statute or court rule). This court lacks jurisdiction and ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.

J. Hardesty Cadish

cc: Hon. Rena G. Hughes, District Judge, Family Court Division Charles Adam Newman Radford J. Smith, Chartered Eighth District Court Clerk

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

CHARLES ADAM NEWMAN, No. 79800 Appellant, vs. LYNDA ELIZABETH NEWMAN, Respondent.

JAN i 1020 ELIZABET A. CLERK OF ME, COURT sr 5-Yo-t-A-nt,SA6 DEPLIPc

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL This is a pro se appeal from a district court order regarding a motion for order to show cause, motion to strike, and countermotion for sanctions; and an order regarding a memorandum of fees and costs. Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Court Division, Clark County; Rena G. Hughes, Judge. Review of the notice of appeal and documents before this court reveals jurisdictional defects. First, it appears that the notice of appeal from the order regarding motion for order to show cause was untimely filed. Notice of entry of the order was served on July 22, 2019. However, appellant did not file the notice of appeal in the district court until October 4, 2019, well after the 30-day appeal period provided in NRAP 4(a)(1). An untimely notice of appeal fails to vest jurisdiction in this court. See Healy v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft, 103 Nev. 329, 741 P.2d 432 (1987). Second, the challenged order regarding fees and costs does not appear to be substantively appealable. NRAP 3A(b)(8) permits an appeal from a special order after final judgment, which is an order that affects the rights of any party arising from the final judgment. Gumm v. Mainor, 118 SUPREME COURT Of NEVADA

(0) 1947A 4W). o -oat ci Lai lilt= EASIMIllak Atli= Nev. 912, 59 P.3d 1220 (2002). Here, the challenged order awards fees and costs as sanctions related to appellant's filing of a motion for order to show cause, and does not affect the rights of the parties arising from the decree of divorce. Thus, the order is not appealable as a special order after final judgment, and no other statute or court rule appears to authorize an appeal from this order. See Brown v. MHC Stagecoach, LLC, 129 Nev. 343, 345, 301 P.3d 850, 851 (2013) (this court "may only consider appeals authorized by statute or court rule). This court lacks jurisdiction and ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.

J. Hardesty Cadish

cc: Hon. Rena G. Hughes, District Judge, Family Court Division Charles Adam Newman Radford J. Smith, Chartered Eighth District Court Clerk

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Newman Vs. Newman (Child Custody), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newman-vs-newman-child-custody-nev-2020.

Opinion

J. Hardesty Cadish

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack