DEAN MICHAEL HUGGINS v. ETHELJIVE HUGGINS (2023)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

This is an appeal from a district court order finding a postnuptial agreement to be enforceable. Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Division, Clark County; Stacy Michelle Rocheleau, Judge.

Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the order challenged on appeal is not a final judgment. Appellant opposes the motion,¹ and respondent has filed a reply. Respondent filed a claim for divorce, no divorce decree has been entered, and the district court's order expressly states that the hearing was limited to the validity of the postnuptial agreement and set a hearing date for further proceedings. Appellant proposes that the order is the final judgment because it establishes how the division of property should be effected.

This court has consistently held that “a final judgment is one that disposes of all the issues presented in the case, and leaves nothing for the future consideration of the court, except for post-judgment issues such as attorney's fees and costs.” Barbara Ann Hollier Tr. v. Shack, 131 Nev. 582, 590, 356 P.3d 1085, 1090 (2015), citing Lee v. GNLV Corp., 116 Nev. 424, 426, 996 P.2d 416, 417 (2000); Valley Bank of Nev. v. Ginsburg, 110 Nev. 440, 445, 874 P.2d 729, 733 (1994). The district court has not yet entered a divorce decree and, as respondent states in the reply, issues such as alimony, asset characterization, and the final division of assets and debts remain pending. No final judgment has yet been entered. This court lacks jurisdiction. The motion to dismiss is granted, and this court

ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.

Cadish, J.

Pickering, J.

Bell, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Appellant's untimely motion to file an opposition to the motion to dismiss is granted. The opposition was filed on August 29, 2023.