ACCOMANDO VS. ACCOMANDO (CHILD CUSTODY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court reviewed jurisdiction sua sponte under NRAP 3(g) and found the notice of appeal untimely under NRAP 4(a)(1), as computed in conjunction with NRAP 26(c). Service of written notice of entry of the divorce decree occurred on July 6, 2022; the notice of appeal was filed August 29, 2022, beyond the 30-day appeal period. Citing Healy v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft, 103 Nev. 329, 741 P.2d 432 (1987), the court reiterated that an untimely notice of appeal fails to vest jurisdiction in the Supreme Court. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and appellant's motion for a stay was denied as moot.

In plain language

This case never reached the merits. Mario Accomando tried to appeal a divorce decree from the Clark County family court, but he filed his paperwork too late. Under Nevada's appellate rules, a person who wants to appeal generally has 30 days from the date they are served with written notice that the judgment has been entered. Missing that deadline means the Supreme Court has no power - no "jurisdiction" - to hear the appeal at all, no matter what the appeal is about. Here, the divorce decree was filed on June 29, 2022, and written notice of entry was served on Mr. Accomando on July 6, 2022. He did not file his notice of appeal until August 29, 2022, which was well past the 30-day window. Because the court concluded it lacked jurisdiction, it dismissed the appeal. The court also denied a pending motion for a stay as moot, meaning there was no longer any live appeal in which to grant a stay.