123 Nev. 71, 75, 157 P.3d 704, 706 (2007), we have not addressed whether a division of property in a divorce case is an affirmative recovery to which a lien may attach. In light of our disposition of this case, this question is not fairly presented, and we decline to examine it on a hypothetical basis. 7 The court quotes NRS 18.015(3) but incorrectly cites to NRS 18.015(2). 8 The Schlang court cited In re Nicholson, 57 B.R. 672 (D. Nev. 1986) (discussing when an attorney lien attaches to property). 9 Compare Kramer v. Kramer, 96 Nev. 759, 762, 616 P.2d 395, 397 (1980) (the court loses jurisdiction over property divided by a divorce decree where the parties wait for longer than six months to modify the decree), with Collins v. Murphy, 113 Nev. 1380, 1384-85, 951 P.2d 598, 600-01 (1997) (<HOLDING>), superseded by rule amendment, In the Matter
holding filing of motion for reconsideration does not toll the 30day deadline for filing petition for review recognizing that an appeal filed within 30 days of the entry of an order awarding attorney fees was timely filed as to the issue of attorney fees holding that the filing of an opening brief within the time period for filing a notice of appeal could constitute notice of appeal holding that notice of appeal was not effectively taken where appeal was filed simultaneously with timely motion for reconsideration because when timely motion for reconsideration is filed a notice of appeal filed prior to disposition of the motion to reconsider has no effect holding that it was unfairly prejudicial and an error to adjudicate a motion for attorney fees filed after the deadline for filing a notice of appeal had passed