DZIEDZIC VS. DZIEDZIC (CHILD CUSTODY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction, addressing each challenged order in turn. As to the November 29, 2022, order, the court reiterated its earlier ruling in Docket No. 86131 that the order is temporary and therefore not appealable, citing In re Temporary Custody of Five Minors, 105 Nev. 441, 777 P.2d 901 (1989). As to the March 15, 2024, and April 5, 2024, orders, the court applied NRAP 4(a)(1)'s 30-day deadline measured from service of written notice of entry. Service occurred on March 18, 2024, and April 11, 2024; the notice of appeal was filed July 8, 2024. An untimely notice of appeal deprives the court of jurisdiction. Healy v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft, 103 Nev. 329, 741 P.2d 432 (1987). As to the May 20, 2024, order, the court found it not substantively appealable because it denied reconsideration and enforced prior orders without finally granting or denying a change in custody and without affecting rights growing out of the divorce decree. The court analyzed appealability under NRAP 3A(b)(7) (final orders altering child custody) and NRAP 3A(b)(8) (special orders after final judgment), citing Gumm v. Mainor, 118 Nev. 912, 920, 59 P.3d 1220, 1225 (2002), for the rule that a special order after final judgment must affect rights growing out of the final judgment. No other statute or rule was identified that would authorize the appeal. The court granted appellant's motions for leave to file a late docketing statement and to waive the attachment requirement, and denied as moot her request to file an amended docketing statement. It denied appellant's motion to disqualify Justice Bell as untimely under NRAP 35(a)(1) and held the objection waived. The court took no action on the transcript request and denied as moot the motion to stay.

In plain language

After her divorce, Amy Dziedzic continued to litigate custody issues with Michael Dziedzic in the family court in Clark County. She tried to appeal five different orders the family court issued between late 2022 and mid-2024. The Nevada Supreme Court dismissed her appeal because it concluded it did not have authority (jurisdiction) to hear any of the five orders. The court gave three reasons. First, the November 29, 2022, order was only a temporary order, and the Supreme Court had already told her in an earlier appeal (Docket No. 86131) that temporary custody orders cannot be appealed. Second, two of the orders - from March 15, 2024, and April 5, 2024 - were appealed too late. Nevada's appellate rules give a party 30 days to file a notice of appeal after being served with written notice that the order was entered. She was served in March and April 2024 but did not file her notice of appeal until July 8, 2024, well past the deadline. Third, the May 20, 2024, order simply denied reconsideration of earlier orders and enforced them; it did not change custody or otherwise affect rights growing out of the divorce decree, so it was not the kind of order Nevada law allows a party to appeal. The court also addressed several side motions. It granted her requests to file a late docketing statement and to waive the attachment requirement, and denied as moot her request to file an amended docketing statement for typo corrections. It denied as untimely her motion to disqualify Justice Bell, finding she had waived the objection. It took no action on her transcript request and denied as moot her motion to stay various district court orders.