Poulos v. Tichenor

 Our review of this appeal reveals a jurisdictional defect. This
court only has appellate jurisdiction when an appeal is authorized by
statute or court rule. See NRAP 3A(b); Taylor Constr. Co. v. Hilton Hotels
Corp., 100 Nev. 207, 209, 678 P.2d 1152, 1153 (1984). NRAP 3A(b)(8)
allows an appeal to be taken from a special order entered after a final
judgment. To be appealable as a special order after final judgment, the
order must affect the rights of some party to the action growing out of the
judgment. Gunim u. Mainor, 118 Nev. 912, 920, 59 P.3d 1220, 1225
(2002). Further, in the context of post-divorce proceedings, an order
denying a motion to amend a divorce decree is appealable as a special
order after final judgment, if "the motion is based upon changed factual or
legal circumstances and the moving party is not attacking the original
judgment." Burton v. Burton, 99 Nev. 698, 700, 669 P.2d 703, 705 (1983).
Here, the district court's December 13, 2013, order merely
enforced appellant's obligation for spousal support under the divorce
decree and appellant's obligation for attorney fees awarded to respondent
under a prior order. Appellant's challenge is simply an attack of the
original divorce decree and prior attorney fees order. Therefore, we
conclude that the district court's order is not appealable as a special order
after final judgment under NRAP 3A(b)(8). Moreover, to the extent that
the district court's order reducing amounts to judgment was entered in
conjunction with respondent's request to hold appellant in contempt, the
order is also not appealable on that basis. See Pengilly u. Rancho Santa
Fe Homeowners Ass'n, 116 Nev. 646, 649, 5 P.3d 569, 571 (2000)
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0 ) 1947A e
(recognizing that a contempt order is not appealable). Accordingly, we
lack jurisdiction over this appeal, and we
ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.'
, J.
Parraguirre
dthtri — J.
S aitta
cc: Hon. Bill Henderson, District Judge, Family Court Division
Daniel Poulos
Martha Joan Tichenor
Eighth District Court Clerk
'In light of this order, we deny as moot respondent's motion to
dismiss and notice of objection. We further• deny as moot appellant's
motion for an extension of time, and we direct the clerk of this court to
return, unfiled, appellant's civil proper person appeal statement
provisionally received on May 6, 2014, and respondent's proper person
response received on June 9, 2014.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A eto