IRWIN, Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to this court's authority under Neb. Ct. R. App. P. § 2-111(B)(1) (rev. 2008), this case was ordered submitted without oral argument. Todd Sloan appeals from an order of the district court, which order affirmed an order of the county court finding in favor of Mike Larsen and Deloris Gonzales. Sloan failed to file his appeal from the district court's order within 30 days because he was not provided with notice of the entry of the order. Instead, Sloan filed a motion to vacate the order. After a hearing, the district court granted Sloan 30 additional days to appeal because of the court clerk's failure to provide him notice of the entry of the order. Sloan then filed this appeal.
Upon our review, we vacate that order which purported to provide Sloan with 30 additional days to appeal and direct the district court to rule on Sloan's motion to vacate, by either granting or denying the motion to vacate. We do so because the district court did not have the authority to grant Sloan additional time to appeal and such order is void. Because such order is void, Sloan's notice of appeal was not timely filed and we lack jurisdiction to reach the merits of the case.
II. BACKGROUND
After a trial, the county court found in favor of Larsen and Gonzales and ordered Sloan to pay damages. The specifics of the lawsuit are not relevant to our disposition, and therefore, we will not burden the reader with them.
Sloan appealed the decision of the county court to the district court. Oral arguments were held, and in an order filed on March 9, 2004, the district court affirmed the decision of the county court in its entirety. No further action was taken until July 2004, when Sloan filed a motion to vacate the judgment. In the motion, Sloan
[m]ove[d] the Court for an order vacating its judgment that was entered on the 8
th day of March, 2004, for the reason of neglect and omission of the Clerk in that the Clerk of the Court failed to send a notice of said judgment to [Sloan] or his attorney as directed by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1301.01, thereby denying [Sloan] further opportunity for appeal.
The district court held a hearing on Sloan's motion. After the hearing, the court entered an order finding that "the Clerk of the District Court and the Clerk of the County Court failed to provide notice to counsel as required in Neb. Rev. Stat. [§] 25-1301.01 of the decision entered by this Court." The court also found that the court clerk's failure to adequately notify Sloan of the entry of the March 2004 order eliminated Sloan's right to pursue an appeal. The court then granted Sloan 30 days from July 27, 2004, to perfect his appeal.
Sloan filed his notice of appeal with this court on August 20, 2004.
III. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
Because we conclude that we are without jurisdiction to hear Sloan's appeal, we need not specifically address Sloan's assignments of error concerning the merits of this case.
IV. ANALYSIS
Before reaching the legal issues presented for review, it is the duty of an appellate court to determine whether it has jurisdiction over the matter before it. In re Guardianship of Sophia M., 271 Neb. 133, 710 N.W.2d 312 (2006). Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1912 (Reissue 2008) provides that a notice of appeal from a district court order must be filed within 30 days after the entry of such order. If a notice of appeal is not filed within the 30-day time limit, then the appellate court does not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. See § 25-1912. Here, the district court filed its order affirming the decision of the county court on March 9, 2004. Sloan did not file his notice of appeal with this court until August 20, more than 5 months after entry of the district court order.
The delay between the time the district court filed its order and the time Sloan filed his notice of appeal with this court appears to be due to an error of the court clerk. In Sloan's motion to vacate the March 2004 district court order, Sloan alleged that he did not receive notice of the entry of the order. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1301.01 (Reissue 2008) provides:
Within three working days after the entry of any civil judgment, except judgments by default when service has been obtained by publication or an appearance of the defaulting party has been made, the clerk of the court shall send a postcard or notice by United States mail to each party whose address appears in the records of the action, or to the party's attorney or attorneys of record, advising that a judgment has been entered and the date of entry.
In an order filed on August 18, 2004, the district court found that the court clerk had, in fact, failed to provide notice of the entry of the March 2004 order to Sloan or his counsel. The court also indicated that the court clerk's failure to adequately notify Sloan of the entry of the March 2004 order eliminated Sloan's right to pursue an appeal.
The Nebraska Supreme Court has previously held that a clerk's noncompliance with § 25-1301.01 cannot defeat a party's right to appeal. See Pofahl v. Pofahl, 196 Neb. 347, 243 N.W.2d 55 (1976). Because Sloan was not provided with notice of the district court's March 2004 order and was, as a result, unable to file a notice of appeal within 30 days of the entry of that order, he must be provided with an avenue to obtain his appeal.
Sloan filed a motion to vacate the March 2004 order because of the court clerk's failure to provide notice to him. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2001(4) (Reissue 2008) provides that "[a] district court may vacate or modify its own judgments or orders . . . for mistake, neglect, or omission of the clerk, or irregularity in obtaining a judgment or order." Moreover, the Nebraska Supreme Court has held that where a party did not learn of an order because of a failure to comply with § 25-1301.01, the order should be vacated. See Simmons v. Lincoln, 176 Neb. 71, 125 N.W.2d 63 (1963). As such, we find that Sloan's motion to vacate the March 2004 order was a proper manner to bring the court clerk's omission before the district court.
The district court held a hearing on Sloan's motion to vacate the March 2004 order; however, the court did not specifically rule on the motion. Instead, the court granted Sloan 30 additional days to appeal the March 2004 order. The district court does not have the authority to grant such an extension of a party's time to appeal. "Trial court has no inherent power, directly or indirectly, to extend time for taking appeal." Ricketts v. Continental Nat. Bank, 169 Neb. 809, 813, 101 N.W.2d 153, 157 (1960). Because the district court lacked authority to grant Sloan additional time to appeal, such order is void. Accordingly, Sloan's notice of appeal was not timely filed and we do not have jurisdiction over Sloan's appeal.
When an appellate court lacks jurisdiction, it may not reach the merits of a case. See Goeser v. Allen, 14 Neb. App. 656, 714 N.W.2d 449 (2006). The above rule has only one exception. The exception is that even though an appellate court may lack jurisdiction to hear the merits of the case, the appellate court does have authority to vacate a lower court's order and, if appropriate, remand the case for further proceedings, when such order is void. See id.
We vacate the district court's order which purported to provide Sloan with 30 additional days to appeal from the March 2004 order and direct the district court to rule on Sloan's motion to vacate.
V. CONCLUSION
The district court did not have the authority to grant Sloan additional time to appeal, and such order is void. Because such order is void, Sloan's notice of appeal was not timely filed and we lack jurisdiction to reach the merits of the case. However, we do vacate the district court's order which purported to provide Sloan with 30 additional days to appeal from the March 2004 order, and on remand, we direct the district court to rule on Sloan's motion to vacate.
ORDER VACATED, APPEAL DISMISSED, AND CAUSE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.