PERREIRA VS. EISENBERG (CHILD CUSTODY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Citing Brown v. MHC Stagecoach, LLC, 129 Nev. 343, 345, 301 P.3d 850, 851 (2013), the court reiterated that it "may only consider appeals authorized by statute or court rule." NRAP 3A(b)(7) authorizes appeals from district court orders finally resolving a child custody issue, and the October 6, 2025, order qualified. However, NRAP 4(a)(1) requires a notice of appeal to be filed within 30 days. Notice of entry was served by mail on October 7, 2025; the notice of appeal was filed December 11, 2025, beyond the 30-day appeal period. Citing Healy v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft, 103 Nev. 329, 331, 741 P.2d 432, 433 (1987), the court held it lacks jurisdiction to consider an untimely appeal and dismissed. The order observes that the same October 6, 2025, order is challenged in appellant's separate appeal in Docket No. 91613, where the merits may be addressed.

In plain language

This is a child custody appeal that the Nevada Supreme Court threw out before reaching the merits, because the appeal was filed too late. The father, Eric Perreira, was trying to challenge a Clark County family court order entered on October 6, 2025, that decided custody of a minor child. Under Nevada's appellate rules, a party who wants to appeal generally has 30 days from the date the other side mails notice that the order has been entered. Notice was mailed on October 7, 2025, but Mr. Perreira did not file his notice of appeal in district court until December 11, 2025 - well beyond the 30-day window. Because the deadline to appeal is jurisdictional - meaning the Supreme Court has no power to hear an appeal filed after it expires - the court dismissed the case. The court noted, however, that Mr. Perreira has a separate pending appeal (Docket No. 91613) that challenges the same October 6, 2025, order, and that he can pursue his arguments about that order in that other appeal.