WARD VS. VILLAFLOR (CHILD CUSTODY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court reviewed jurisdiction sua sponte upon initial docketing. Appellant timely filed an NRCP 59(e) motion to alter judgment directed at the May 5, 2021, order, and timely filed a motion for reconsideration and an amended motion for reconsideration directed at the February 23, 2022, custody modification order. Each constituted a tolling motion under NRAP 4(a)(4). See Lytle v. Rosemere Estates Prop. Owners, 129 Nev. 923, 314 P.3d 946 (2013); AA Primo Builders LLC v. Washington, 126 Nev. 578, 585, 245 P.3d 1190, 1195 (2010). The notices of appeal were filed after the tolling motions but before any written order resolving them. Per NRAP 4(b)(6), "[a] premature notice of appeal does not divest the district court of jurisdiction." The court held it lacked appellate jurisdiction over the prematurely filed notices and dismissed the appeal. In a footnote, the court observed that although appellant represented in his amended notice of appeal and docketing statement that the February 23, 2022, order denied the motion to alter judgment, that order does not address the motion to alter judgment. The court further noted appellant may file a new notice of appeal once the district court enters written orders resolving the pending motions, and it took no action on appellant's motion to redesignate the appeal.

In plain language

This is a child custody dispute in which the father, Erik Douglas Ward, tried to appeal two decisions from the family court in Clark County. One was a 2021 order refusing to undo an earlier ruling, and the other was a 2022 order changing custody of a child. The Supreme Court did not decide whether the family court was right or wrong. Instead, it found a timing problem with the appeal. After each of the two orders he wanted to challenge, Mr. Ward had filed follow-up motions asking the family court to reconsider or change its ruling. Under Nevada's appellate rules, those follow-up motions pause the clock for filing an appeal. But they also mean a person cannot appeal yet - they have to wait until the family court formally rules on those follow-up motions in a written order. Mr. Ward filed his notices of appeal before the family court had issued written rulings on his pending motions. Because of that, the Supreme Court concluded it had no authority (no jurisdiction) to hear the appeal at this stage and dismissed it. The Court noted that Mr. Ward can file a new notice of appeal once the district court enters written orders resolving his still-pending motions.