Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
MATTHEW ADAM SUPNICK, Appellant, v. MELISSA ANN SUPNICK, Respondent.
ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
This is an appeal from an order denying a motion to modify child custody. Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Court Division, Clark County; Stacy Michelle Rocheleau, Judge.
This court's initial review indicated a potential jurisdictional defect. Specifically, the notice of appeal appears to have been prematurely filed because it was filed after the timely filing of a tolling motion and before the motion has been formally resolved. A timely tolling motion terminates the 30-day appeal period, and a notice of appeal is of no effect if it is filed after such a motion is filed but before the district court enters a written order finally resolving the motion. See NRAP 4(a)(6). Accordingly, this court entered an order directing appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
In response to the order to show cause, appellant admits that he filed a timely tolling motion for reconsideration and to alter or amend the judgment. Appellant contends that the district court's October 31, 2022, minute order denying the tolling motion gives this court jurisdiction over this appeal. “[D]ispositional court orders that are not administrative in nature, but deal with the procedural posture or merits of the underlying controversy, must be written, signed, and filed before they become effective.” State, Div. of Child & Family Servs. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 445, 454, 92 P.3d 1239, 1245 (2004); see also Rust v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 103 Nev. 686, 689, 747 P.2d 1380, 1382 (1987) (stating that the clerk's minute order is ineffective). Accordingly, it appears the tolling motion is still pending. A premature notice of appeal does not divest the district court of jurisdiction; this court lacks jurisdiction, and
ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.1
Cadish, J.
Pickering, J.
Gibbons, Sr. J.
FOOTNOTES
1. The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in this matter under a general order of assignment.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 85212
Decided: November 28, 2022
Court: Supreme Court of Nevada.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)