Narrative Opinion Summary
In a case before the Supreme Court of Nevada, the appellants challenged several orders against multiple respondents, including Sables, LLC and Breckenridge Property Fund 2016, LLC. The primary legal issue concerned the appealability of orders that were not final judgments. The appellants sought to overturn a summary judgment and an attorney fees award, but the court found these orders non-appealable due to unresolved claims by Breckenridge for slander of title, unjust enrichment, and rent or possession. The appellants failed to provide evidence or a conclusive written order resolving these claims, which underscored the lack of finality. The court underscored that jurisdiction must be established by the appellants, who did not adequately address the appealability of a permanent writ of restitution, ultimately resulting in the dismissal of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court also refrained from addressing additional requests on the appeal's scope from other respondents, as they had not filed formal motions. This decision emphasizes the necessity for a final judgment and proper jurisdictional grounds to pursue an appeal successfully.
Legal Issues Addressed
Appealability of Summary Judgment Orderssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court ruled that an order for summary judgment is non-appealable if unresolved claims remain, as evidenced by Breckenridge's claims for slander of title, unjust enrichment, and rent or possession of the property.
Reasoning: Breckenridge argued that its unresolved claims for slander of title, unjust enrichment, and rent or possession of the property rendered the summary judgment order non-appealable, a position the appellants contested without sufficient evidence or argument.
Final Judgment Requirement for Appealsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Supreme Court of Nevada determined that the orders appealed from were not final judgments, thereby dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Reasoning: The dismissal was predicated on a lack of jurisdiction, as the court found that the appealed orders, including a motion for summary judgment and an order awarding attorney fees and costs, were not final judgments.
Jurisdictional Burden on Appealing Partysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court emphasized that the burden of establishing jurisdiction lies with the appellants, who failed to demonstrate the appealability of the orders.
Reasoning: The court emphasized that jurisdiction must be established by the appealing party and concluded that it lacked jurisdiction, thus granting the motion to dismiss the appeal.
Requirement for Written Orders Resolving Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court noted the absence of a written order conclusively resolving Breckenridge's claims, which contributed to the determination that the orders were not final and thus not appealable.
Reasoning: The court noted that appellants failed to provide a written order conclusively resolving Breckenridge's claims and that the November 5, 2021, order indicated further proceedings regarding damages were necessary.