AMBE v. AMBE (2021)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Mark Antony Ambe appeals from a post-divorce decree order regarding child custody. Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Court Division, Clark County; Denise L. Gentile, Judge.

Our review of the documents before us reveals a jurisdictional defect. Specifically, in the proceedings below, following an evidentiary hearing in October 2019, the district court modified the parties’ physical custody order—awarding the parties joint physical custody when Mark was previously awarded primary physical custody—but deferred financial matters, including child support and arrearages, for a future date. Following subsequent, competing motions to modify and clarify the district court's October 2019 decision, the district court denied both parties’ requests to modify physical custody and addressed certain other issues raised by the parties, but failed to address the financial matters.

This court has jurisdiction to consider an appeal only when the appeal is authorized by statute or court rule. Taylor Constr. Co. v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 100 Nev. 207, 209, 678 P.2d 1152, 1153 (1984). And no statute or court rule provides for an appeal from an order regarding child custody that is not final. See NRAP 3A(b)(1) (allowing appeals from final judgments); NRAP 3A(b)(7) (allowing appeals from child custody orders that finally establish or modify custody); Rennets v. Rennets, 127 Nev. 564, 569, 257 P.3d 396, 399 (2011) (“An order is final if it disposes of the issues presented in the case and leaves nothing for the future consideration of the court,” (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted)). Under these circumstances, we must conclude that the order appealed from is not a final judgment and that we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal. See Taylor Constr. Co., 100 Nev. at 209, 678 P.2d at 1153. Accordingly, we

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.¹

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable Jerome T. Tao, Judge, did not participate in the decision of this matter.