Opinion
No. 73962
11-30-2017
Ryan Ulysses GOUDIE, Appellant, v. Jennifer Margaret PACKARD–KEANE, Respondent.
Ryan Ulysses Goudie Walsh & Friedman, Ltd.
Ryan Ulysses Goudie
Walsh & Friedman, Ltd.
ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
This is a pro se appeal from several district court orders. Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Court Division, Clark County; Lisa M. Brown, Judge.
Our review of the documents submitted to this court pursuant to NRAP 3(g) and the record on appeal reveals jurisdictional defects. Specifically, it appears that none of the orders designated in the notice of appeal is substantively appealable. See NRAP 3A(b).
This court has jurisdiction to consider an appeal only when the appeal is authorized by statute or court rule. Taylor Constr. Co. v. Hilton Hotels, 100 Nev. 207, 678 P.2d 1152 (1984). The January 12, 2017, order denying the motion to modify the child's therapy schedule is not an appealable order.
The January 12, 2017, order denying appellant's motion to change custody would be appealable, but the notice of appeal was not filed until September 5, 2017, more than thirty days after service of written notice of entry, and it is therefore untimely. See NRAP 4(a)(1) ; NRAP 26(c).
The July 18, 2017, findings of fact and conclusions of law holding appellant in contempt for violating the mutual behavior order and the August 9, 2017, order awarding attorney fees as a sanction, are not appealable. No statute or court rule provides for an appeal from an order that solely concerns contempt, and attorney fees and costs imposed as a sanction for contempt are not independently appealable. See Pengilly v. Rancho Santa Fe Homeowners Ass'n, 116 Nev. 646, 649, 5 P.3d 569, 671 (2000) (recognizing that a contempt order entered in an ancillary proceeding is not appealable); compare Vaile v. Vaile, 133 Nev., Adv. Op. 30, 396 P.3d 791, 794 (2017) ; and Lewis v. Lewis, 132 Nev., Adv. Op. 46, 373 P.3d 878, 881 (2016) (considering challenges to contempt findings and sanctions in an order that modified child custody).
We lack jurisdiction, and we therefore
We deny as moot appellant's motion for an extension of time to file the fast track statement.
--------