REDMOND VS. NGUYEN-REDMOND (CHILD CUSTODY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court reviewed jurisdiction sua sponte under NRAP 3(g) and concluded the notice of appeal was untimely under NRAP 4(a). The notice was filed after a timely tolling motion for reconsideration under NRAP 4(a)(4) but before the district court entered a written order resolving that tolling motion. Under AA Primo Builders, LLC v. Washington, 126 Nev. 578, 245 P.3d 1190 (2010), a timely tolling motion terminates the 30-day appeal period, and a notice of appeal filed during the tolling interval - after the motion is filed but before the district court enters a written order resolving it - is of no effect. Lacking a valid notice of appeal, the court lacked appellate jurisdiction and dismissed. The pending motions for a stay pending appeal and for appointment of counsel were denied as moot.

In plain language

This is a family-law appeal that the Nevada Supreme Court threw out before reaching the merits because the appeal paperwork was filed at the wrong time. The court did not decide who was right or wrong about child custody, sanctions, attorney fees, or any of the other issues from the lower court. The reason: when a party files certain post-judgment motions in the trial court (here, a motion for reconsideration), the clock to file an appeal pauses until the trial court formally rules on that motion in writing. If a notice of appeal is filed during that pause - after the motion is filed but before the trial court has issued a written order resolving it - the notice has no legal effect. That is what happened here, so the Supreme Court concluded it had no jurisdiction (no legal authority) to hear the appeal and dismissed it. The court also denied as moot Mr. Redmond's motions for a stay pending appeal and for appointment of counsel, because there was no longer an appeal pending in which those requests could matter.