Opinion
No. 81149
06-24-2020
CHARLES ERNST, Appellant, v. ROSEMARY ERNST, Respondent.
ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
This is a pro se appeal from a district court order denying respondent's motion to re-open discovery regarding appellant's spouse, granting a motion to reopen discovery regarding appellant's finances, denying respondent's motion for a waste judgment against appellant's spouse, and entering judgment against appellant regarding a credit account appellant was previously required to pay. Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Court Division, Clark County; T. Arthur Ritchie, Jr., Judge.
Review of the notice of appeal reveals a jurisdictional defect. Appellant is not aggrieved by the first and third orders. See NRAP 3A(a) (allowing an appeal by an aggrieved party); Valley Bank of Nev. v. Ginsburg, 110 Nev. 440, 446, 874 P.2d 729, 734 (1994) (defining an aggrieved party as one whose personal or property rights are substantially and adversely affected by a ruling of the district court). Additionally, no statute or court rule authorizes an appeal from the first, second, and fourth orders. See NRAP 3A(b)(8); Brown v. MHC Stagecoach, LLC, 129 Nev. 343, 345, 301 P.3d 850, 851 (2013) (this court "may only consider appeals authorized by statute or court rule"); Gumm v. Mainor, 118 Nev. 912, 59 P.3d 1220 (2002) (defining a special order after final judgment). Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction and
ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.
/s/_________, J.
Gibbons /s/_________, J.
Stiglich /s/_________, J.
Silver cc: Hon. T. Arthur Ritchie, Jr., District Judge, Family Court Division
Charles Ernst
Fine Carman Price
Eighth District Court Clerk