HERBERT JONES v. SANDRA ODOM AND CARL KITE (2025)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

This is a pro se appeal from district court orders entered on May 8, 2025, and May 13, 2025, in an action for partition. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Jacob A. Reynolds, Judge.

Review of the notice of appeal and documents before this court reveals a jurisdictional defect. This court “may only consider appeals authorized by statute or court rule.” Brown v. MHC Stagecoach, LLC, 129 Nev. 343, 345, 301 P.3d 850, 851 (2013). The challenged orders are not appealable as final judgments under NRAP 3A(b)(l) because they do not finally resolve all claims asserted in the complaint. See Lee v. GNLV Corp., 116 Nev. 424, 426, 996 P.2d 416, 417 (2000) (defining a final judgment). Specifically, respondents’ claim for declaratory relief regarding the parties’ rights to the property appears to remain unresolved. While an interlocutory order in a partition action is appealable if the order determines the rights and interests of the parties and directs a partition, sale, or division, NRAP 3A(b)(10), neither of the challenged orders determines the rights and interests of the parties. Therefore, the orders are not appealable under NRAP 3A(b)(10).

As no other statute or court rule appears to authorize an appeal from the challenged orders, we lack jurisdiction and we

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.¹

Pickering, J.

Cadish, J.

Lee, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   This dismissal is without prejudice to appellant's ability to file a new notice of appeal if the district court enters an appealable order and appellant is aggrieved by that order.