In re Marriage of Okland

Decision Date27 December 2022
Docket NumberDA 22-0521
PartiesIN RE THE MARRIAGE OF: ANDREA OKLAND, Petitioner and Appellant, and CHRISTOPHER OKLAND, Respondent and Appellee
CourtMontana Supreme Court

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF: ANDREA OKLAND, Petitioner and Appellant, and CHRISTOPHER OKLAND, Respondent and Appellee

No. DA 22-0521

Supreme Court of Montana

December 27, 2022


Respondent and Appellee Christopher Okland (Christopher) moves to dismiss this appeal pursuant to M. R. App. P. 13 based on the failure of Petitioner and Appellant Andrea Okland (Andrea) to file a timely opening brief. Andrea opposes Christopher's motion, arguing that her opening brief is not yet due.

Christopher asserts that the record on appeal was complete for purposes of appeal as of November 3, 2022, when the final ordered transcript was filed with the Clerk of this Court. Thus, pursuant to M. R. App. P. 13(1), Andrea had until December 5, 2022, to file her opening brief. Since she failed to do so, he argues this Court should dismiss her appeal.

Andrea maintains that the record was not complete for purposes of appeal until December 7, 2022, when the Clerk of this Court filed additional documents from the District Court record, and therefore her opening brief is due on January 6, 2023, because M. R. App. P. 13(1) directs an appellant to file the opening brief within 30 days after the date on which the record is filed.

Christopher, however, maintains that the additional portion of the District Court record, which consists of documents entered in that record after Andrea filed her Notice of Appeal in this Court, was transmitted at Andrea's request and without leave of Court as required by M. R. App. P. 9(3)(b) and 9(4). As such, he argues that the late filing of this


portion of the record should not act to extend the deadline for Andrea's opening brief.

Andrea asserts that Rule 9(3) is inapplicable because it applies only to transcripts, but she does not explain why she failed to move for an extension of time as required by Rule 9(4). Andrea argues that M. R. App. P. 8(1), which defines the record for purposes of appeal, does not distinguish between documents filed in the district court before and...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT