MATHESON VS. MATHESON (CHILD CUSTODY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction based on a premature notice of appeal. Under NRAP 4(a)(4), specified post-judgment motions carry tolling effect and contemplate entry of a written order resolving them. Under NRAP 4(a)(6), a notice of appeal filed before entry of a written order disposing of a timely tolling motion is premature. The court cited AA Primo Builders, LLC v. Washington, 126 Nev. 578, 585, 245 P.3d 1190, 1194-95 (2010), for the standard governing when a post-judgment motion carries tolling effect. Applying those rules, the court found that appellant had filed a timely motion for reconsideration before filing the notice of appeal, and no written order resolving that motion had been entered. The notice of appeal was therefore premature, depriving the Supreme Court of jurisdiction. Citing NRAP 4(a)(6), the court observed that "A premature notice of appeal does not divest the district court of jurisdiction," leaving the district court free to resolve the pending tolling motion.

In plain language

This was an appeal from a divorce decree in an Elko County child-custody case. Before the Nevada Supreme Court could consider whether the trial judge made any mistakes, it had to confirm it had authority - called jurisdiction - to hear the appeal in the first place. The court found it did not. The reason is procedural. After the trial court entered the divorce decree, the appellant filed a motion for reconsideration in the trial court. Under Nevada's appellate rules, certain post-judgment motions, including this kind of motion, "toll" - that is, pause - the clock for filing an appeal until the trial court decides the motion in a written order. The appellant filed his notice of appeal before the trial court issued a written order resolving the reconsideration motion. That made the notice of appeal "premature." Because the appeal was premature, the Supreme Court concluded it had no jurisdiction and dismissed the case. The court noted, however, that a premature notice of appeal does not strip the district court of its own authority - meaning the trial court can still rule on the pending reconsideration motion.