Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the appellant's appeal was dismissed due to a jurisdictional defect arising from the untimely filing of the notice of appeal, as it did not comply with the procedural deadlines established under NRAP 4(a). The appellant sought to appeal both a custody order and an order denying relief under NRCP 60(b). However, the notices for these orders were served on December 11, 2017, and January 11, 2018, respectively, with corresponding appeal deadlines of January 16, 2018, and February 15, 2018. The appellant's notice of appeal, filed on March 1, 2018, was beyond these deadlines. The court cited precedent from Holiday Inn v. Barnett, confirming that an order denying NRCP 60(b) relief is independently appealable, and referenced Healy v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft to emphasize that an untimely notice does not confer jurisdiction. Although the appellant's December 29, 2017, motion was treated as a request for NRCP 60(b) relief, it did not affect the appeal's timeliness. Consequently, the respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction was rendered moot, as the appeal was already dismissed due to its untimeliness.
Legal Issues Addressed
Appealability of NRCP 60(b) Orderssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court reaffirmed that an order denying NRCP 60(b) relief is independently appealable, referencing established case law.
Reasoning: The ruling cites the precedent that an order denying NRCP 60(b) relief is independently appealable, as established in Holiday Inn v. Barnett.
Impact of Tolling on Appeal Deadlinessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Even considering the potential tolling effect of the appellant's motion filed on December 29, 2017, the notice of appeal remained untimely.
Reasoning: Additionally, a motion filed by the appellant on December 29, 2017, was treated as a request for NRCP 60(b) relief, but even if this motion tolled the appeal period, the notice was still filed late.
Jurisdictional Defect Due to Untimely Appealsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court dismissed the appeal due to lack of jurisdiction, emphasizing that an untimely notice of appeal does not confer jurisdiction.
Reasoning: An untimely notice of appeal does not confer jurisdiction to the court, as supported by Healy v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft.
Timeliness of Notice of Appeal under NRAP 4(a)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant's notice of appeal was dismissed due to untimeliness, as it was filed after the deadlines stipulated by NRAP 4(a) for both the custody order and the order denying NRCP 60(b) relief.
Reasoning: The appellant's notice of appeal was not filed until March 1, 2018, which is beyond these deadlines.