VALDEZ VS. SERMERSHEIM (CHILD CUSTODY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction on two independent grounds. First, applying Valley Bank of Nev. v. Ginsburg, 110 Nev. 440, 448, 874 P.2d 729, 735 (1994), the court noted that to qualify as a party under NRAP 3A(a), a person "must have been served with process, appeared in the district court, and been named as a party of record." The record did not reflect that appellant was ever properly made a party to the underlying adoption matter. Second, the appeal was untimely under NRAP 4(a)(1). Notice of entry of the adoption decree was electronically served February 5, 2025; the notice of appeal was filed December 9, 2025, well outside the 30-day window. Citing Healy v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft, 103 Nev. 329, 331, 741 P.2d 432, 433 (1987), the court reiterated that an untimely notice of appeal fails to vest jurisdiction. The court further addressed the tolling effect of appellant's November 4, 2025 motion to set aside. Under NRCP 60(c), an NRCP 60(b) motion "must be made within a reasonable time," not to exceed six months from the proceeding or notice of entry for grounds in NRCP 60(b)(1)-(3). For tolling purposes under NRAP 4(a)(5)(A), an NRCP 60 motion tolls the appeal period only "if the motion is filed no later than 28 days after service of written notice of entry of the judgment or order." The motion here was filed nearly nine months after notice of entry and therefore did not toll the appeal deadline. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and denied the motion filed April 14, 2026, as moot.

In plain language

This case involves an attempt to appeal a Nevada district court's decree of adoption concerning three minor children. Esmeralda Valdez tried to challenge that decree in the Nevada Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court dismissed her appeal without reaching the substance of her arguments because of two threshold problems with how and when the appeal was filed. The first problem was that Valdez does not appear to have been a "party" to the adoption case in the lower court. Under Nevada appellate rules, only someone who was served with process, appeared in the district court, and was named as a party of record can appeal a district court decision. The Supreme Court found no indication that Valdez was ever properly made a party in the district court proceeding. The second problem was timing. In Nevada, a person generally has 30 days from when notice of entry of a judgment is served to file a notice of appeal. Notice of entry of the adoption decree was electronically served on February 5, 2025, but Valdez did not file her notice of appeal until December 9, 2025 - more than ten months later. Valdez had filed a motion to set aside the decree on November 4, 2025. Such motions can sometimes pause ("toll") the deadline to appeal, but only if they are filed within 28 days of notice of entry. Because Valdez's motion was filed nearly nine months after notice of entry, it did not extend the appeal deadline. With no party status and no timely notice of appeal, the Supreme Court concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal. A separate motion Valdez filed on April 14, 2026, was denied as moot.