Opinion ID: 2631646
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: During the pendency of Colleen's appeal from the divorce decree, the district court entered a post-decree order modifying the custody arrangement. Under NRS 125.510(1)(b), the district court may [a]t any time modify or vacate its order regarding a minor child's custody. This court has not addressed whether this statute confers continuous jurisdiction on the district court even when an appeal is pending. This court has consistently explained that a timely notice of appeal divests the district court of jurisdiction to act and vests jurisdiction in this court [2] and that the point at which jurisdiction is transferred from the district court to this court must be clearly defined. [3] Although, when an appeal is perfected, the district court is divested of jurisdiction to revisit issues that are pending before this court, the district court retains jurisdiction to enter orders on matters that are collateral to and independent from the appealed order, i.e., matters that in no way affect the appeal's merits. [4] Applying these basic jurisdiction premises to the child custody context, the district court has no authority to rule on a post-judgment motion to modify a child custody arrangement while an appeal is pending and the custody issue is squarely before this court. Consequently, even though NRS 125.510(1)(b) purportedly authorizes the district court to change a child custody arrangement at any time, the district court may only modify child custody when it has jurisdiction to do so  i.e., when no perfected appeal pertaining to the child custody arrangement is pending. The proper procedure to be followed when a party seeks to change a child custody order during an appeal challenging the child custody arrangement is a remand under Huneycutt v. Huneycutt. [5] Under the Huneycutt procedure, a district court may hear a motion, in the first instance, to modify custody while an appeal is pending. If the district court is inclined to grant the motion, then it may certify its inclination to this court. At that point, the moving party would file a motion in this court for remand to the district court. This court could then, in its discretion, remand the matter to the district court for a determination on the motion to modify custody. If the only issue on appeal concerned child custody and this court granted the motion for remand, then the appeal would be dismissed. If, however, the appeal raised additional issues other than child custody, this court could order a limited remand and direct the district court to enter an order resolving the motion to modify within a specific time period and to transmit the order to this court. On remand, once the district court entered its order concerning custody, any aggrieved party could appeal from the order by filing a timely notice of appeal. [6] Although the district court lacks jurisdiction to revisit a child custody order that is on appeal, the district court's jurisdiction to make short-term, temporary adjustments to the parties' custody arrangement, on an emergency basis to protect and safeguard a child's welfare and security, [7] is not impinged when an appeal is pending. If the district court's emergency order will necessitate a longer-term custody change or will implicate the custody issues on appeal, then the party seeking the change must immediately move for a remand from this court and attach to that motion the district court's emergency order. In the present case, the district court concluded that under NRS 125.510(1)(b), it had the authority to entertain Terry's motion to modify the child custody arrangement while the appeal was pending. As the issues raised by Colleen on appeal from the divorce decree concerned child custody, the district court did not have jurisdiction to enter a post-decree order changing the custody arrangement. Although the district court lacked jurisdiction to modify the custody arrangement under the divorce decree, because it was inclined to grant Terry's motion to modify custody, and in the interest of judicial economy, we have considered the post-decree order in Docket No. 42003. [8] Since the post-decree order modified the custody arrangement under the divorce decree, we do not need to consider the initial custody arrangement in Docket No. 39160, and we dismiss that appeal as moot. [9]