ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
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 respondents assets and personal financial circumstances. Appellant objected to alleged inaccuracies in the audit and sought a trial de novo on the district courts affirmance of those inaccuracies. But nothing in the district courts order finally resolves the 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 appellants 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.