No. 13161.
I N THE SUPREPE COURT O F THE STATE OF M N A A
O T N
1977
R Y O D W.
AMN ZELL,
P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,
VICTORIA ZELL,
Defendant and A p p e l l a n t .
A p p e a l from: District Court of t h e Ninth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
H o n o r a b l e B . W. Thomas, J u d g e p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel o f Record:
For Appellant:
S m i t h , Emmons, B a i l l i e a n d W a l s h , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana
R o b e r t J. Emmons a r g u e d , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana
For Respondent :
F r i s b e e a n d Moore, C u t Bank, Montana
L a r r y E p s t e i n a r g u e d , C u t Bank, Montana
Submitted: March 3 0 , 1 9 7 7
Decided: JUN -6 1971
Filed: ! 6 19id
-
Clerk
Mr. Chief J u s t i c e P a u l G. H a t f i e l d d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e
Court .
T h i s i s a n a p p e a l of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s p r o p e r t y
d i v i s i o n rendered i n a divorce a c t i o n .
B e f o r e t h e m e r i t s o f t h e c a s e c a n be r e a c h e d w e must
d e t e r m i n e whether t h i s a p p e a l i s p r o p e r l y b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t .
Respondent, Raymond W. Z e l l , h a s f i l e d a motion t o d i s m i s s t h i s
a p p e a l , based upon t h e f a i l u r e of a p p e l l a n t , V i c t o r i a M. Zell,
t o f i l e a timely n o t i c e of appeal with t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t .
There h a s been no d i s t r i c t c o u r t r e c o r d f i l e d w i t h t h i s
C o u r t t h e r e f o r e w e must r e l y upon t h e b r i e f s o f t h e p a r t i e s t o
e s t a b l i s h t h e t i m e sequence i n v o l v e d . The judgment was e n t e r e d
October 2 0 , 1975, w i t h t h e n o t i c e o f e n t r y o f judgment p e r s o n a l l y
s e r v e d upon a p p e l l a n t ' s t r i a l c o u n s e l October 23, 1975. After
c o n t a c t i n g a n o t h e r a t t o r n e y a p p e l l a n t f i l e d a n o t i c e of a p p e a l
on December 9 , 1975. Thereafter appellant retained a third
attorney t o present t h i s appeal.
The f a c t s show t h i s n o t i c e of a p p e a l w a s f i l e d 17 d a y s
a f t e r t h e e x p i r a t i o n of t h e 30 d a y s a l l o w e d f o r f i l i n g a n o t i c e
o f a p p e a l by t h e Montana R u l e s of A p p e l l a t e C i v i l P r o c e d u r e .
Rule 4 ( a ) , M. R.App.Civ.P. states:
"An a p p e a l s h a l l be t a k e n by f i l i n g a n o t i c e of
appeal i n t h e d i s t r i c t court. * * *" (Emphasis
supplied.)
Rule 5 , M.R.App.Civ.P. states i n p a r t :
"The t i m e w i t h i n which an a p p e a l from a judgment
o r a n o r d e r must be t a k e n s h a l l be 30 d a y s from
t h e e n t r y t h e r e o f , e x c e p t t h a t i n c a s e s where
s e r v i c e o f n o t i c e of e n t r y o f judgment i s r e q u i r e d
by Rule 7 7 ( d ) o f t h e Montana Rules o f C i v i l
~ ; o c e d u r e t h e t i m e s h a l l be 30 d a y s from t h e
s e r v i c e o f n o t i c e of e n t r y of judgment * * *.
"Upon showing o f e x c u s a b l e n e q l e c t , t h e d i s t r i c t
c o u r t may e x t e n d t h e t i m e f o r t i l i n g t h e n o t i c e
o f a p p e a l by any p a r t y f o r a p e r i o d n o t t o exceed
30 d a y s from t h e e x p i r a t i o n o f t h e o r i g i n a l t i m e
p r e s c r i b e d by t h i s r u l e . " (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . )
I t i s w e l l s e t t l e d i n Montana t h a t a n u n t i m e l y n o t i c e o f
a p p e a l i s a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l d e f e c t , which r e n d e r s t h i s C o u r t
powerless t o hear t h e appeal. J a c k s o n v . T i n k e r , 1 6 1 Mont.
51, 504 P.2d 692; L e i t h e i s e r v. Mont. S t a t e P r i s o n , 1 6 1 Mont.
343, 505 P.2d 1203; Haywood v . S e d i l l a , 167 Mont. 101, 535
Appellant does not d i s p u t e t h e f a c t t h a t t h e f i l i n g of
h e r n o t i c e o f a p p e a l was u n t i m e l y . What s h e now a r g u e s i s t h a t
s h e i s e n t i t l e d t o a n e x t e n s i o n of t i m e , a l l e g i n g e x c u s a b l e
neglect. However, t h i s Court i s n o t t h e p r o p e r forum f o r s u c h
a request.
Rule 5 , M.R.App.Civ.P., only grants t o t h e d i s t r i c t
c o u r t t h e a u t h o r i t y t o extend t h e t i m e f o r taking an appeal.
Furthermore Rule 3 and Rule 2 1 ( b ) , M.R.App.civ.P., prohibit
t h i s Court from e x t e n d i n g t h e t i m e f o r t a k i n g a n a p p e a l . Rule
3 states:
" I n t h e i n t e r e s t o f e x p e d i t i n g d e c i s i o n upon any
m a t t e r b e f o r e i t , o r f o r o t h e r good c a u s e shown,
t h e Supreme C o u r t may, e x c e p t a s o t h e r w i s e pro-
v i d e d i n Rule 2 1 ( b ) , suspend t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o r
p r o v i s i o n s of t h e s e r u l e s on a p p l i c a t i o n o f a
p a r t y o r on i t s own motion and may o r d e r pro-
ceedings i n accordance with i t s d i r e c t i o n . "
(Emphasis s u p p l i e d . )
Rule 2 1 ( b ) p r o v i d e s :
"The c o u r t f o r good c a u s e shown may upon motion
- -
e x t e n d t h e t i m e p r e s c r i b e d by t h e s e Rules o r by
i t s o r d e r f o r d o i n g any a c t , and may t h e r e b y
p e r m i t a n a c t t o be done a f t e r t h e e x p i r a t i o n o f
such t i m e i f t h e f a i l u r e t o act w a s excusable
under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s ; b u t t h e c o u r t may n o t
extend t h e time f o r f i l i n g a n o t i c e of appeal,
e x c e p t a s p r o v i d e d i n Rule 5 . " (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . )
The combined e f f e c t o f Rule 3 and Rule 2 1 ( b ) i s f u r t h e r
e x p l a i n e d i n t h e Advisory Committee's Note t o Rule 3 , M.R.App.Civ.P.,
wherein it i s s t a t e d :
" * * * Rule 2 1 ( b ) p r o h i b i t s t h e Supreme C o u r t
from e x t e n d i n g t h e t i m e f o r t a k i n g a p p e a l . "
T h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f Rule 3 and Rule 2 1 ( b ) i s i d e n t i c a l
t o t h a t given t h e i r counterparts i n t h e f e d e r a l r u l e s of a p p e l l a t e
procedure. The Advisory Committee n o t e s p o i n t o u t t h a t t h e s e
s p e c i f i c r u l e s , Rule 3 and R u l e 2 1 ( b ) w e r e p a t t e r n e d a f t e r
the federal rules. I n f a c t , Rule 3 , M.R.App.Civ.P. and Rule
2 , o f t h e f e d e r a l r u l e s a r e i d e n t i c a l i n s u b s t a n c e and comment.
9 Moore's F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e 11202.03, i n t e r p r e t i n g Rule 2 o f t h e
federal rules states:
"Thus a c o u r t o f a p p e a l s h a s no power t o p e r m i t
a n a p p e a l t o be s o u g h t o r t a k e n a f t e r t h e ex-
p i r a t i o n o f t h e t i m e f i x e d by s t a t u t e o r r u l e . * * *"
(Emphasis s u p p l i e d . )
See a l s o : B o g a r t v . P e o p l e o f S t a t e o f C a l i f o r n i a , 409 F.2d
25, c e r t . d e n . 393 U.S. 1101, 89 S.Ct. 900, 2 1 L Ed 2d 793;
U n i t e d S t a t e s v. Tallman, 437 F.2d 1103; B r y a n t v. E l l i o t t ,
467 F.2d 1109; Cramer v. W i s e , 494 F.2d 1185.
For t h e s e r e a s o n s , w e c o n c l u d e t h a t t h i s C o u r t h a s no
a u t h o r i t y t o permit an appeal t o be taken a f t e r t h e e x p i r a t i o n
o f t h e t i m e f i x e d by Rule 5 , M.R.App.Civ.P. I f an extension of
t i m e i s s o u g h t , t h e p r o p e r forum t o make s u c h a r e q u e s t i s t h e
d i s t r i c t court.
A q u e s t i o n , which n a t u r a l l y a r i s e s and which must be
discussed, i s t h e l e n g t h of t i m e a p a r t y has t o r e q u e s t a n exten-
s i o n o f t i m e from t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r f i l i n g a n o t i c e o f
appeal. The f e d e r a l r u l e s o f a p p e l l a t e p r o c e d u r e s p e c i f i c a l l y
address t h i s subject. I n 9 Moore's F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e 11204.08,
Rule 4 ( a ) p r o v i d e s i n p a r t :
" * * * Such a n e x t e n s i o n may be g r a n t e d b e f o r e
o r a f t e r t h e t i m e o t h e r w i s e p r e s c r i b e d by t h i s
s u b d i v i s i o n * * *." (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . )
The Montana R u l e s o f A p p e l l a t e C i v i l P r o c e d u r e a r e s i l e n t
a s t o t h i s s u b j e c t and do n o t p r o v i d e a n y g u i d a n c e o n e way o r
the other. W e b e l i e v e t h a t a l l o w i n g a p a r t y t o r e q u e s t s u c h an
extension of t i m e before o r a f t e r t h e e x p i r a t i o n of t h e o r i g i n a l
t i m e p r e s c r i b e d by R u l e 5 , M.R.App.Civ.P., i s t h e b e t t e r procedure
and w e a d o p t t h i s view.
T h i s d o e s n o t , however, g i v e a p a r t y a n u n l i m i t e d amount
of t i m e t o r e q u e s t a n e x t e n s i o n o f t i m e from t h e d i s t r i c t
court. Rule 5 p r o v i d e s :
"Upon showing o f e x c u s a b l e n e g l e c t , t h e d i s t r i c t
c o u r t may e x t e n d t h e t i m e f o r f i l i n s t h e n o t i c e
- -
o f a p p e a l by any p a r t y f o r a p e r i o d - n o t t o exceed
30 d a y s from t h e e x p i r a t i o n o f t h e o r i q i n a l t i m e
p r e s c r i b e d by t h i s Rule." (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . )
Consequently t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t l o s e s i t s a u t h o r i t y t o g r a n t
such a n e x t e n s i o n a f t e r t h e a d d i t i o n a l 30 day p e r i o d e x p i r e s .
A s a p p l i e d t o t h i s c a s e , t h i s r u l e would r e q u i r e t h e a p p e l l a n t
t o make a r e q u e s t f o r e x t e n s i o n of t i m e no l a t e r t h a n 60 d a y s
from t h e s e r v i c e of n o t i c e of e n t r y o f judgment.
For t h e s e r e a s o n s , t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s motion t o d i s m i s s
t h i s appeal i s granted. Furthermore, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s
instructed t h a t its authority t o consider a p p e l l a n t ' s request
f o r an e x t e n s i o n o f t i m e , i f s h e s h o u l d s o c h o o s e , e x p i r e s 60
d a y s from t h e d a t e o f s e r v i c e o f n o t i c e o f e n t r y o f judgment,
e x c l u d i n g t h e amount o f t i m e
we concur:
L 7
h
-LA/& -------- ------ -----