ROTH v. ROTH (2018)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

This is a pro se appeal from an order modifying child support. Ninth Judicial District Court, Douglas County; Nathan Tod Young, Judge.

Our review of the documents submitted to this court pursuant to NRAP 3(g) reveals a jurisdictional defect. Specifically, the notice of appeal appears to be untimely filed under NRAP 4(a) because it was filed over 30 days after written notice of entry of the “Order after Hearing” on May 31, 2018. To the extent that appellant appeals from the “Amended Order after Hearing,” no substantive changes were made to the order. See Morrell v. Edwards, 98 Nev. 91, 640 P.2d 1322 (1982) (stating that that test for determining whether an appeal is properly taken from an amended judgment rather than the judgment originally entered depends upon whether the amendment disturbed or revised legal rights and obligations which the prior judgment had plainly and properly settled with finality). The amended order specifically states that no changes were made other than the correction of Mr. Roth's name. Accordingly, the notice of appeal is untimely filed, and appellant is not aggrieved by the amended order. See NRAP 3A(a); Valley Bank of Nevada v. Ginsburg, 110 Nev. 440, 874 P.2d 729 (1994). The court lacks jurisdiction, and we

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.