IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
ELIZABETH RAMSEY, AN No. 82397
INDIVIDUAL,
Appellant,
vs. FILED
EUGENE TUMBARELLO, AN
INDIVIDUAL; AND SHAMROCK AUG 1 2 2021
PAINTING, INC., EL17.AR A. BROWN
PREPAE COURT
Res • ondents. BY
DEP CLERK
ORDER REINSTATING APPEAL AND DISMISSING APPEAL
This is an appeal from a district court order denying claims of
exemption from execution, declaring a homestead void, and compelling
compliance of a judgment debtor, and from an order denying a motion for
reconsideration Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Tierra
Danielle Jones, Judge; Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County;
Crystal Eller, Judge.
This court previously disrnissed this appeal due to appellant's
filing of a petition for bankruptcy relief. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1). The
dismissal was without prejudice to appellant's right to move for
reinstatement of this appeal upon either lifting of the bankruptcy stay or
final resolution of the bankruptcy proceedings. After appellant moved to
reinstate this appeal, this court ordered appellant to file a supplement to
the motion to reinstate discussing whether this appeal may be reinstated
despite a discharge injunction. Alternatively, appellant was permitted to
provide a copy of any bankruptcy court order allowing this appeal to
proceed.
Appellant represents in her supplement that the bankruptcy
court has entered an order permitting this appeal to proceed. Attached to
?A - 23.5E0
the supplement is a copy of a bankruptcy court order granting appellant's
motion to annul the automatic stay nunc pro tunc and allow the appeal to
proceed. Respondents have not filed any reply to the supplement. Having
considered appellant's supplement and the order of the bankruptcy court, it
appears this appeal may proceed. Accordingly, this appeal is reinstated.
Prior to the bankruptcy disrnissal, respondents moved to
dismiss this appeal for lack ofjurisdiction. As this court did not resolve that
motion before dismissal of this appeal due to the bankruptcy stay, we do so
now.
Respondents assert that the challenged orders are not
substantively appealable. In opposition, appellant contends that the orders
are appealable under NRAP 3A(b)(8) as special orders after final judgment
because they were entered after the final judgment and affect the rights
growing out of the final judgment. Respondents have replied.
"Not all post-judgment orders are appealable." Burton u.
Burton, 99 Nev. 698, 700, 669 P.2d 703, 705 (1983). An appealable special
order after final judgment is an order that affects the rights of a party to
the action growing out of the previously entered judgment. Gurnrn v.
Mainor, 118 Nev. 912, 914, 59 P.3d 1220, 1221 (2002). Appellant does not
support her assertion that the challenged orders affect the rights growing
out of the final judgment with any argument. Appellant thus fails to
demonstrate that the orders are special orders after final judgment. See
Moran v. Bonneville Square Assocs., 117 Nev. 525, 527, 25 P.3d 898, 899
(2001) ("[T]he burden rests squarely upon the shoulders of a party seeking
to invoke our jurisdiction to establish, to our satisfaction, that this court
does in fact have jurisdiction."). And no other statute or court rule appears
to allow an appeal from the challenged orders. See Brown v. MHC
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
10) I947A Mem. 2
Stagecoach, LLC, 129 Nev. 343, 345, 301 P.3d 850, 851 (2013) (this court
"may only consider appeals authorized by sta tute or court rule), Alvis v.
State, 99 Nev. 184, 186, 660 P.2d 980, 981 (1983), overruled on other grounds
by AA Primo Builders, LLC v. Washington, 126 Nev. 578, 245 P.3d 1190
(2010) (concluding that an "order denying rehearing is not appealable as a
special order made after final judgmene). Accordingly, this court grants
the motion to dismiss and
ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.'
P rraguirre
Stighch Silver
cc: Hon. Crystal Eller, District Judge
Hon. Tierra Danielle Jones, District Judge
Ara H. Shirinian, Settlement Judge
Law Office of Christopher P. Burke
Cory Reade Dows & Shafer
Eighth District Court Clerk
'Respondents also suggest, without argument, that the notice of
appeal was untimely filed. Given this court's determination that the
challenged orders are not substantively appealable, we do not reach this
argument.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
WI 1947A .14409. 3
Ramsey Vs. Tumbarello
Combined Opinion