Opinion
No. 56240.
03-18-2011
Frank ORTIZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, WELFARE DIVISION; and Joyce Ann Ortiz, Respondents.
Frank Ortiz Clark County District Attorney
Frank Ortiz
Clark County District Attorney
ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
This is a proper person appeal from a district court order reducing child support arrearages to judgment. Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Court Division, Clark County; Cheryl B. Moss, Judge.
On March 19, 2008, the district court entered an order reducing appellant's child support arrearages to judgment. Appellant now appeals from that order.
As an initial matter, we note that generally, an order reducing child support arrearages to judgment is not substantively appealable. See NRAP 3A(b) (setting forth orders from which an appeal may be taken); Taylor Constr. Co. v. Hilton Hotels, 100 Nev. 207, 209, 678 P.2d 1152, 1153 (1984) (stating that parties may only appeal when authorized by statute or court rule); cf. Khaldy v. Khaldy, 111 Nev. 374, 377, 892 P.2d 584, 586 (1995) (explaining that child support payments that have already accrued are vested and cannot be modified or voided). Regardless, to the extent that appellant sought to challenge the amount of the child support arrearages, we have reviewed the March 19, 2008, order, and we conclude that any challenge to that order is moot as the March 19 order has since been superseded by a more recent order regarding arrearages. See University Sys. v. Nevadans for Sound Gov't, 120 Nev. 712, 720, 100 P.3d 179, 186 (2004) (recognizing that cases presenting live controversies at the time of their inception may become moot by the occurrence of subsequent events). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal as moot.
We note that appellant filed a notice of appeal from the more recent order, but he did not complete the proper person appeal packet provided to him in that appeal, and the appeal was dismissed as abandoned. See Ortiz v. State, Welfare Division, Docket No. 56197 (Order Dismissing Appeal, September 13, 2010). Appellant did not seek rehearing of the dismissal.
It is so ORDERED.