IN RE: THE ADOPTION OF THE MINOR CHILDREN: D.E.A.B.; A.M.A.B. AND A.M.A.B. (2026)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

This is a pro se appeal of a decree of adoption. Eighth Judicial District Court. Family Division, Clark County; Soonhee Bailey, Judge.

Review of the notice of appeal and documents before this court reveals jurisdictional defects. First, to qualify as a party within the meaning of NRAP 3A(a), a person must have been served with process, appeared in the district court, and been named as a party of record. Valley Bank of Nev. v. Ginsburg, 110 Nev. 440, 448, 874 P.2d 729, 735 (1994). It does not appear that appellant was ever properly made a party to this matter in the district court.

Second, the appeal appears untimely. Notice of entry of the challenged decree was electronically served on February 5, 2025. The notice of appeal was not filed until December 9, 2025, well after the expiration of the 30-day appeal period prescribed by NRAP 4(a)(1). See Healy v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft, 103 Nev. 329, 331, 741 P.2d 432, 433 (1987) (explaining that an untimely notice of appeal fails to vest jurisdiction in this court).

The motion to set aside, filed on November 4, 2025, failed to toll the time to file a notice of appeal from the adoption decree. A motion for NRCP 60(b) relief “must be made within a reasonable time” which, for reasons enumerated in NRCP 60(b)(1)-(3), may not exceed 6 months from the date of the proceeding or date of notice of entry of the order, whichever is later. NRCP 60(c). A motion for relief under NRCP 60 may toll the time to file a notice of appeal of a judgment or order “if the motion is filed no later than 28 days after service of written notice of entry of the judgment or order.” NRAP 4(a)(5)(A). The motion to set aside was filed in the district court nearly nine months after notice of entry of the decree of adoption was served on February 5, 2025, and failed to toll the time to file the notice of appeal of the decree of adoption. This court lacks jurisdiction and

ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.¹

Stiglich, J.

Cadish, J.

Lee, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The motion filed April 14, 2026, is denied as moot.