JOHN SEVERNS v. SHARI SEVERNS (2026)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

This is a pro se appeal from a post-divorce-decree district court order granting respondent's motion for entry of a QDRO to determine respondent's interest in appellant's retirement benefits. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Hon. Mari D. Parlade, Judge.

Review of the notice of appeal and other documents before this court reveals a jurisdictional defect. The June 12, 2026, minute order identified in the notice of appeal is not appealable. See Div. of Child & Family Servs. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 445, 454, 92 P.3d 1239, 1245 (2004) (“[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.”). To the extent the notice of appeal is construed as an appeal from the August 7, 2026, written order from the June 12 minute order, see NRAP 4(a)(2), that order is also substantively unappealable.

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 August 7 order is not appealable as a special order after final judgment where it merely enforces the district court's July 2, 2026, order directing that each party receive their community property share of the other's pension via a QDRO. See Gumm v. Mainor, 118 Nev. 912, 59, P.3d 1220 (2002) (defining a special order after final judgment). And no other statute or court rule appears to authorize an appeal from the challenged order. Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction and

ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.

Pickering, J.

Parraguirre, J.

Bell, J.