BRYAN WILSON AND CHRISTINE WILSON INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEES OF THE BRYAN AND CHRISTINE WILSON FAMILY TRUST DATED SEPTEMBER 18 2007 v. PAUL SMITH AND MELISSA SMITH INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEES OF THE PAUL SMITH AND MELISSA SMITH REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST (2024)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

This is an appeal from an October 2, 2023, district court order denying legal relief and granting an equitable easement with damages in a real property boundary dispute. Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; David A. Hardy, Judge.

Respondents move to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction, asserting that the order is not final because it directs the parties to submit additional evidence and anticipates thereafter entering a final judgment. Appellants oppose the motion, contending that the order is final because only post-judgment issues remain and, alternatively, that the order is appealable because it denied their claim for injunctive relief.

Having reviewed the parties' arguments, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. “[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.” Lee v. GNLV Corp., 116 Nev. 424, 426, 996 P.2d 416, 417 (2000). Here, the district court directed the parties to either agree to an amount due for the equitable easement it imposed as part of its adjudication of the parties' legal claims or to submit evidence so that it could determine an amount due. The easement amount is an integral part of the relief afforded by the district court on its adjudication of the merits and, thus, not merely part of post-judgment costs and issues. Moreover, the district court expressly contemplated entering a final judgment after its consideration of the remaining issue. Consequently, we conclude that the October 2 order is not appealable as a final judgment. Further, the order is not independently appealable as an order refusing to grant an injunction under NRAP 3A(b)(3), as the order neither expressly rules on a request for an injunction nor finally resolves the claims and issues below.

Accordingly, we grant respondents' motion and ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.

cc: Hon. David A. Hardy, District Judge

Madelyn Shipman, Settlement Judge

Woodburn & Wedge

Backus Burden

Maupin, Cox & LeGoy

Washoe District Court Clerk

Herndon, J. Lee, J. Bell, J.