Opinion
Nos. 58585 58586 58587 58588 58589 58590 58591.
01-23-2012
Lisa S. MYERS–GAMBINI, Appellant, v. Paul A. GAMBINI, Respondent. Lisa S. Myers–Gambini, Appellant, v. Paul A. Gambini, Respondent. Lisa S. Myers–Gambini, Appellant, v. Paul A. Gambini, Respondent. Lisa S. Myers–Gambini, Appellant, v. Paul A. Gambini, Respondent. Lisa S. Myers–Gambini, Appellant, v. Paul A. Gambini, Respondent. Lisa S. Myers–Gambini, Appellant, v. Paul A. Gambini, Respondent. Lisa S. Myers–Gambini, Appellant, v. Paul A. Gambini, Respondent.
Lisa S. Myers–Gambini Paul A. Gambini
Lisa S. Myers–Gambini
Paul A. Gambini
ORDER DISMISSING APPEALS
These are seven proper person appeals from several post-judgment orders entered in a divorce proceeding. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Stefany Miley, Judge.
In these appeals, appellant seeks to challenge post-judgment orders that were entered between November 2006 and August 2008. Notices of entry for each of the challenged orders were served by mail between January 2007 and August 2008. Because service of the notices of entry was by mail, appellant had 33 days from the dates of service to file her notices of appeal. See NRAP 4(a)(1) ; NRAP 26(c). Appellant, however, filed her notices of appeal on June 13, 2011, long after the 33–day appeal period had run. Since appellant's seven notices of appeal are untimely filed, we lack jurisdiction to consider these appeals. See Healy v. Volkswagenwerk, 103 Nev. 329, 331, 741 P.2d 432, 433 (1987) (noting that an untimely notice of appeal fails to vest jurisdiction in this court).
To the extent that appellant, in her notices of appeal, suggests that this court in a previous order prompted her to file these appeals, appellant misinterprets the order. Regardless, the timely filing of a notice of appeal is jurisdictional and therefore essential to this court's power to act. NRAP 3(a) ; Rust v. Clark Cty. School District, 103 Nev. 686, 688–89, 747 P.2d 1380, 1382 (1987).
Accordingly, as we lack jurisdiction to consider the above appeals, we
ORDER these appeals DISMISSED.
In light of this order, we deny as moot appellant's motions, in each of these appeals, for an extension of time to file the civil proper person appeal statement. Accordingly, we direct the clerk of this court to return, unfiled, each of appellant's proposed appeal statements provisionally received on August 1 and August 2, 2011.