AMANDA LUZ MARIN AKA AMANDA LEON v. GASTON LEON (2025)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

This pro se appeal challenges a district court decree for annulment and several post-decree rulings and orders. Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Division, Clark County; Robert Teuton, Judge.

Appellant's notice of appeal indicates that she is appealing from a June 4, 2009, decree for annulment and qualified domestic relations order. Her docketing statement indicates that she also wishes to challenge several post-decree rulings and orders that primarily concern her attempts over the years to set aside a 2012 stipulation and order waiving rights under the qualified domestic relations order and to enforce the qualified domestic relations order.¹ However, because appellant's notice of appeal is untimely as to the rulings and orders, or the rulings and orders are otherwise not substantively appealable, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal.

Per NRAP 4(a)(1), notices of appeal must be filed within 30 days of service of the appealed order's notice of entry. See also NRAP 26(c) (adding 3 days to the appeal period when service is made by mail). This court lacks jurisdiction to consider an untimely appeal. Healy v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft, 103 Nev. 329, 741 P.2d 432 (1987).

Notice of entry of the decree of annulment and qualified domestic relations order was served on June 4, 2009. Service of notice of entry of the orders filed on December 13, 2023 (Order from December 5, 2023 Hearing); April 2, 2024 (Order from March 27, 2024 Hearing); and June 27, 2024 (Order Vacating July 2, 2024 Hearing) was accomplished on December 13, 2023; April 2, 2024; and July 1, 2024, respectively. Appellant's notice of appeal was not filed in the district court until February 3, 2025, well after the appeal period expired for each of the above-mentioned orders. No entry of any sort appears on the district court's docket between July 1, 2024, and the filing of the notice of appeal on February 3. Additionally, with respect to the April 10, 2012, stipulation and order waiving rights under the qualified domestic relations order, appellant is not aggrieved and lacks standing to challenge that order on appeal, NRAP 3A(a), and no appeal may be taken from the district court's September 24, 2019, minutes, Div. of Child & Fam. Servs v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 445, 451-52, 92 P.3d 1239, 1243-44 (2004). Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction and

ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.²

Parraguirre, J.

Bell, J.

Stiglich, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Appellant's motion for an extension of time to file the docketing statement is granted; therefore, the docketing statement was properly filed on March 31, 2025.

2.   Appellant's March 1, 2025, motion to correct a clerical error concerning the “L” at the end of the district court case number is denied, as issues concerning the case number in the district court should be addressed to that court. Further, appellant's March 3, 2025, motion to proceed on appeal with in forma pauperis status is denied as moot, as the filing fee in this matter has already been waived. Appellant's March 5, 2025, motion to correct the caption to name third-party defendants as respondents is denied, as it does not appear that the Nevada Public Employee's Retirement System, Social Security Service, the State of Nevada, and Elizabeth Giallanza were properly brought in as parties to the proceedings below, and they are not properly substituted for a deceased defendant in a family law matter under NRAP 43.