CURRERI VS. MAYHALL (CHILD CUSTODY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court conducted a preliminary jurisdictional review under NRAP 3(g) and identified a defect under NRAP 4(a)(4)(C) and NRAP 4(a)(6). A timely tolling motion terminates the 30-day appeal period, and a notice of appeal filed after such a motion but before the district court enters a written order resolving it is of no effect. See NRAP 4(a)(6). Appellant filed a document styled "Complaint and Objection to Final Order after Trial on the Grounds of Inconsistencies with Court's Statements" on December 11, 2023, which the court treated as a timely motion for reconsideration with tolling effect. See AA Primo Builders, LLC v. Washington, 126 Nev. 578, 585, 245 P.3d 1190, 1195 (2010); cf. Valley Bank of Nev. v. Ginsburg, 110 Nev. 440, 445, 874 P.2d 729, 733 (1994) (court looks to what an order or judgment actually does, not at what it is called). Because the notice of appeal was filed December 20, 2023, while the tolling motion remained unresolved by written order, the notice was premature and the court dismissed the appeal.

In plain language

This is a child custody case in which one parent, Giana L. Curreri, tried to appeal a Washoe County family court order that changed the custody arrangement. Before the Nevada Supreme Court could consider the merits of her appeal, it had to confirm it had authority (jurisdiction) to hear the case at all. The court found a timing problem. On December 11, 2023, Curreri filed a document she titled a "Complaint and Objection to Final Order after Trial on the Grounds of Inconsistencies with Court's Statements." The Supreme Court treated that filing as effectively a motion for reconsideration. Under Nevada's appellate rules, certain post-judgment motions - sometimes called "tolling motions" - pause the clock for filing an appeal until the district court rules on them in writing. If a party files a notice of appeal while such a motion is still pending, the notice has no legal effect. That is what happened here. Curreri filed her notice of appeal on December 20, 2023, while her tolling motion was still unresolved. Because of that, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as filed too early. The dismissal is procedural; the court did not reach any question about whether the custody modification was proper.