IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA IN THE MATTER OF THE No. 82832 GUARDIANSHIP OF THE PERSON AND ESTATE OF HAYWOOD HOLZER, PROTECTED PERSON. HUMBOLDT COUNTY DISTRICT FILED ATTORNEY, AS PUBLIC GUARDIAN, APR 2 9 2022 Appellant, EUZABETH A. BROWN vs. HAYWOOD HOLZER, ctlRXDSU eY RICM CLEI lY"LWr rRa tr Res ondent. ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL This is an appeal from an order adopting and affirming a court master's recommendation with regard to sealing an exhibit, denying a trial de novo on the sealing of the exhibit, and rejecting appellant's objection to being directed to open a bank account for respondent, a protected person. Sixth Judicial District Court, Humboldt County; Michael Montero, Judge. Because it appeared both that the order appealed from was not substantively appealable and that a timely motion to alter or amend the order remained pending in the district court, this court directed appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant has responded and respondent has filed a reply. Appellant explains that the order appealed from addresses an audit ordered by the district court to be conducted by the Nevada State Guardianship Compliance Office of respondent's assets and personal financial circumstances. Appellant objected to alleged inaccuracies in the audit and sought a trial de novo on the district court's affirmance of those inaccuracies. But nothing in the district court's order finally resolves the A? - /3-70q original petition for the appointment of a guardian or alters the rights and obligations of the parties arising from the appointment of a guardian. Accordingly, it appears appellant's remedy is through a petition for extraordinary relief. Appellant further concedes that the motion to alter or amend, filed pursuant to NRCP 52(b), remains pending in the district court. A timely tolling motion terminates the 30-day appeal period, and a notice of appeal is of no effect if it is filed after such a tolling motion is filed, and before the district court enters a written order finally resolving the motion. See NRAP 4(a)(4). Accordingly, the notice of appeal was prematurely filed, and this court ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED. J. Silver 9 J. Cadish cc: Hon. Michael Montero, Disirict Judge Carolyn Worrell, Settlement Judge Humboldt County District Attorney Miller Law, Inc. Humboldt County Clerk SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 194/A 44035 2

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA IN THE MATTER OF THE No. 82832 GUARDIANSHIP OF THE PERSON AND ESTATE OF HAYWOOD HOLZER, PROTECTED PERSON. HUMBOLDT COUNTY DISTRICT FILED ATTORNEY, AS PUBLIC GUARDIAN, APR 2 9 2022 Appellant, EUZABETH A. BROWN vs. HAYWOOD HOLZER, ctlRXDSU eY rRa RICM CLEI lY"LWr tr Res ondent. ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL This is an appeal from an order adopting and affirming a court master's recommendation with regard to sealing an exhibit, denying a trial de novo on the sealing of the exhibit, and rejecting appellant's objection to being directed to open a bank account for respondent, a protected person. Sixth Judicial District Court, Humboldt County; Michael Montero, Judge. Because it appeared both that the order appealed from was not substantively appealable and that a timely motion to alter or amend the order remained pending in the district court, this court directed appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant has responded and respondent has filed a reply. Appellant explains that the order appealed from addresses an audit ordered by the district court to be conducted by the Nevada State Guardianship Compliance Office of respondent's assets and personal financial circumstances. Appellant objected to alleged inaccuracies in the audit and sought a trial de novo on the district court's affirmance of those inaccuracies. But nothing in the district court's order finally resolves the A? - /3-70q original petition for the appointment of a guardian or alters the rights and obligations of the parties arising from the appointment of a guardian. Accordingly, it appears appellant's remedy is through a petition for extraordinary relief. Appellant further concedes that the motion to alter or amend, filed pursuant to NRCP 52(b), remains pending in the district court. A timely tolling motion terminates the 30-day appeal period, and a notice of appeal is of no effect if it is filed after such a tolling motion is filed, and before the district court enters a written order finally resolving the motion. See NRAP 4(a)(4). Accordingly, the notice of appeal was prematurely filed, and this court ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED. J. Silver 9 J. Cadish cc: Hon. Michael Montero, Disirict Judge Carolyn Worrell, Settlement Judge Humboldt County District Attorney Miller Law, Inc. Humboldt County Clerk SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 194/A 44035 2