LORENZO VS. GENDEBIEN (CHILD CUSTODY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court conducted a sua sponte jurisdictional review following docketing-statement review and issued an order to show cause regarding appellate jurisdiction. The court evaluated three potential bases for appeal and found each lacking. First, the challenged order was not appealable as a final judgment under NRAP 3A(b)(1) because it left the issue of non-parent visitation unresolved. See Lee v. GNLV Corp., 116 Nev. 424, 426, 996 P.2d 416, 417 (2000) (defining a final judgment). Second, although the district court entered an August 28, 2023, order substantively amending the challenged order - which would ordinarily require the appeal be taken from the amended judgment, see Morrell v. Edwards, 98 Nev. 91, 92, 640 P.2d 1322, 1324 (1982) - that amended order was itself not substantively appealable because it granted leave to amend the complaint. See Bergenfield v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 131 Nev. 683, 686, 354 P.3d 1282, 1284 (2015). Third, the order was not appealable under NRAP 3A(b)(7) because it did not finally resolve the custody and visitation issues. Gendebien conceded non-appealability under NRAP 3A(b)(1) and NRAP 3A(b)(7); Lorenzo agreed with the court's show-cause analysis. The court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

In plain language

This case involves a dispute between Mary Lorenzo and Pierre Gendebien arising from a complaint for maternity (a court action to establish a legal mother-child relationship). The trial court denied and dismissed the complaint, and both sides took the case to the Nevada Supreme Court - Lorenzo by appeal, Gendebien by cross-appeal. Before reaching the merits, the Supreme Court noticed a problem with its own jurisdiction (its legal authority to hear the case). In Nevada, a party generally can appeal only from a "final judgment" - meaning an order that wraps up all the issues in the case. Here, the order being appealed left open the question of non-parent visitation, so it did not finish the case. The court also flagged a later order entered on August 28, 2023, that changed the original order, but that later order only granted Lorenzo permission to amend her complaint, which is not the kind of order one can appeal from either. The Supreme Court asked both parties to explain why the appeals should not be dismissed. Gendebien conceded the order was not appealable. Lorenzo agreed with the court's analysis and asked that the appeals be dismissed. The court therefore dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal without reaching the substance of the maternity dispute.