KELLY JEANNE LOBECK KELLY JEANNE LOBECK HARPER v. JASON ALLEN HARPER (2025)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

This is an appeal from a district court order awarding attorney fees and costs in a divorce proceeding. Eighth Judicial District Court. Family Division, Clark County; Dedree Butler, Judge.

Preliminary review of the docketing statement and documents before this court revealed a potential jurisdictional defect. Specifically, it appeared that no final judgment has been entered below such that the order challenged on appeal is not appealable as a special order after final judgment. Accordingly, this court ordered appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Having reviewed appellant's response and respondent's reply, appellant has failed to demonstrate this court's jurisdiction. See Moran v. Bonneville Square Assocs., 117 Nev. 525, 527, 25 P.3d 898, 899 (2001) (“[T]he burden rests squarely upon the shoulders of a party seeking to invoke our jurisdiction to establish, to our satisfaction, that this court does in fact have jurisdiction.”). Appellant argues that because the issue of child custody was finally resolved in an August 4, 2024, stipulated partial decree of divorce, that the August 4 order is a final judgment, and the challenged order, awarding attorney fees solely related to the child custody issue, is appealable as a special order after final judgment under NRAP 3A(b)(8).¹

Appellant initiated the district court proceedings by filing a complaint for divorce. The issue of custody of the parties’ minor child was raised in the complaint. Although that issue may be resolved, “financial matters related to the parties’ division of the marital estate” remain pending, as stated in appellant's docketing statement and amended docketing statement, such that the complaint for divorce has not been finally resolved. See Lee v. GNLV Corp., 116 Nev. 424, 426, 996 P.2d 416, 417 (2000) (“[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.”). The August 4, 2024, partial decree resolving the issue of child custody is not a final judgment because it does not resolve all claims raised in appellant's complaint for divorce. See Alper v. Posin, 77 Nev. 328, 331, 363 P.2d 502, 503 (1961) (stating that there can be only one final judgment in an action or proceeding), overruled on other grounds by Lee v. GNLV Corp., 116 Nev. 424, 996 P.2d 416 (2000). Therefore, the challenged order is not appealable as a special order after final judgment. This court lacks jurisdiction and

ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.

Parraguirre, J.

Bell, J. J.

Stiglich,

FOOTNOTES

1.   In her initial docketing statement, appellant cited 3A(b)(1) (final judgment) as the basis for appealability. Appellant has now filed an amended docketing statement citing NRAP 3A(b)(8) as the basis for appealability.