HURTADO VS. HURTADO (CHILD CUSTODY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction based on a premature notice of appeal. Citing NRAP 4(a)(4), NRAP 4(a)(6), and AA Primo Builders LLC v. Washington, 126 Nev. 578, 585, 245 P.3d 1190, 1195 (2010), the court noted that the notice of appeal was filed after a timely tolling motion for reconsideration but before entry of a written order resolving that motion, rendering it premature. After appellant failed to respond to the initial jurisdictional inquiry, the court issued a show-cause order on June 21, 2024, with a June 28, 2024 deadline. Appellant filed no response. Applying Moran v. Bonneville Square Assocs., 117 Nev. 525, 527, 25 P.3d 898, 899 (2001), the court reiterated that "[T]he burden rests squarely upon the shoulders of a party seeking to invoke our jurisdiction to establish, to our satisfaction, that this court does in fact have jurisdiction." Because appellant did not carry that burden, dismissal followed.

In plain language

A mother tried to appeal a family court ruling that denied her request to relocate with her child and her request to have the child produced at a hearing. Before her appeal could move forward, the Nevada Supreme Court spotted a problem with its own ability to hear the case. The problem was timing. After the family court issued the order she wanted to challenge, she filed a motion asking the family court to reconsider. Under Nevada appellate rules, that kind of "tolling motion" pauses the clock for filing an appeal until the family court issues a written order resolving the reconsideration request. She filed her notice of appeal before the family court had entered that written order, which made her appeal premature. The Supreme Court asked her to explain why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. She did not respond. The court then issued a second order giving her until June 28, 2024, to respond, and warned that silence could lead to dismissal. She again did not respond. Because the party who brings an appeal carries the burden of showing that the appellate court has jurisdiction, and she made no such showing, the court dismissed the appeal. A dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is not a ruling on whether the relocation denial was right or wrong; it means the appellate court concluded it could not reach the merits at this time.