ZELL v ZELL

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

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: Decided: Filed: - ! 6 19id Clerk March 3 0 , 1 9 7 7 JUN -6 1971 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 Mr. . 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 (Emphasis appeal i n t h e d i s t r i c t court. * * *" 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 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 neglect. 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 prov 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 proceedings 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, (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . ) e x c e p t a s p r o v i d e d i n Rule 5 . " - - 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 exp 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 extens 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 (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . ) s u b d i v i s i o n * * *." 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 (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . ) p r e s c r i b e d by t h i s Rule." - 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 h 7 -LA/& -------- ------ -----

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.