Poulos v. Tichenor

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: June 25, 2014
• Docket: 64730
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Our review of this appeal reveals a jurisdictional defect. This court only has appellate jurisdiction when an appeal is authorized by statute or court rule. See NRAP 3A(b); Taylor Constr. Co. v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 100 Nev. 207, 209, 678 P.2d 1152, 1153 (1984). NRAP 3A(b)(8) allows an appeal to be taken from a special order entered after a final judgment. To be appealable as a special order after final judgment, the order must affect the rights of some party to the action growing out of the judgment. Gunim u. Mainor, 118 Nev. 912, 920, 59 P.3d 1220, 1225 (2002). Further, in the context of post-divorce proceedings, an order denying a motion to amend a divorce decree is appealable as a special order after final judgment, if "the motion is based upon changed factual or legal circumstances and the moving party is not attacking the original judgment." Burton v. Burton, 99 Nev. 698, 700, 669 P.2d 703, 705 (1983). Here, the district court's December 13, 2013, order merely enforced appellant's obligation for spousal support under the divorce decree and appellant's obligation for attorney fees awarded to respondent under a prior order. Appellant's challenge is simply an attack of the original divorce decree and prior attorney fees order. Therefore, we conclude that the district court's order is not appealable as a special order after final judgment under NRAP 3A(b)(8). Moreover, to the extent that the district court's order reducing amounts to judgment was entered in conjunction with respondent's request to hold appellant in contempt, the order is also not appealable on that basis. See Pengilly u. Rancho Santa Fe Homeowners Ass'n, 116 Nev. 646, 649, 5 P.3d 569, 571 (2000)

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0 ) 1947A e (recognizing that a contempt order is not appealable). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal, and we ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.'

, J.

Parraguirre

dthtri — J. S aitta

cc: Hon. Bill Henderson, District Judge, Family Court Division Daniel Poulos Martha Joan Tichenor Eighth District Court Clerk

'In light of this order, we deny as moot respondent's motion to dismiss and notice of objection. We further• deny as moot appellant's motion for an extension of time, and we direct the clerk of this court to return, unfiled, appellant's civil proper person appeal statement provisionally received on May 6, 2014, and respondent's proper person response received on June 9, 2014.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A eto