Kennedy v. Kennedy, 3893
Decision Date | 02 April 1971 |
Docket Number | No. 3893,3893 |
Citation | 483 P.2d 516 |
Parties | James C. KENNEDY, Appellant (Plaintiff below), v. Corinne KENNEDY, Appellee (Defendant below). |
Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Joseph E. Darrah, Powell, for appellant.
Ernest J. Goppert, of Goppert & Fitzstephens, Cody, for appellee.
Before McINTYRE, C. J., and PARKER, McEWAN and GRAY, JJ.
The initial question before us is whether or not under the circumstances hereafter delineated an appeal could be allowed from the entry of an amended judgment. On January 8, 1970, the trial court issued 'Amended Findings, Decree, Orders and Judgment, as Per Findings and Order of Supreme Court Filed in the Office of the Clerk Thereof on July 7, 1969 and the Mandate on Reversal or Modification Dated August 18, 1969, Filed Herein August 19, 1969.' 1 Plaintiff on February 9, 1970, filed a timely notice of appeal and subsequently ordered transcript and filed his designation. On March 9, 1970, he moved for an order setting aside the January 8 order 'by and for the reason that there exists mistake, surprise, excusable neglect, and that justice requires the same,' which motion was set for hearing March 11, 1970. 2 Although the record on appeal should have been filed April 10, 1970, plaintiff did not further pursue his appeal. On April 16, 1970, the trial judge entered an order reciting, inter alia:
'* * * it appearing to the Court that said (January 8) order was unfairly entered herein * * * by and for the reason that this Court signed said order in violation of Rule 9 of the Uniform Rules of the District Courts of Wyoming and the Fifth Judicial District 3; and that said amended findings, decree, orders and judgment shall be resubmitted verbatim to the Court and approved as to form by both counsel * * *',
and decreeing the January 8, 1970, order void. Simultaneously the court filed an order identical to that of January 8 except that it bore the April date and was approved as to form by counsel for both plaintiff and defendant. Notice of appeal from that order was filed by plaintiff on May 15, 1970.
Plaintiff in his appeal urges various errors of both the trial court and this court; however, a motion for dismissal was filed by defendant and considered with the arguments on the merits of the cause. As it is our view that the motion must be granted, there is no occasion to enter into aspects of plaintiff's appeal.
It is defendant's contention here that plaintiff abandoned his appeal and that the April 1970 order, allegedly made for no purpose other than to extend or restore his right of appeal, was ineffective.
This court has not been furnished with a record of the hearing in the trial court on plaintiff's March 9, 1970, motion, but his counsel asserts:
* * *'
It is the position of plaintiff that the trial court's order reopening the matter and subsequent entry of the April 16, 1970, decree terminated that initial proceedings for the appeal. We do not agree.
Plaintiff does not specifically inform us when he received notice of the entry of the January 8, 1970, judgment. Counsel for defendant asserts that the judge announced his findings to counsel for both parties in open court, requesting counsel for defendant to prepare the form of findings and decree; that counsel did so, mailing plaintiff a copy thereof on or about December 17; that on January 2, 1970, plaintiff's counsel wrote the trial court acknowledging receipt of the proposed order, criticizing the 'approach' of defendant, and offering to redraft the proposed decree if the court wished; and that on January 8, 1970, he mailed a copy of the January 8, 1970, order to counsel for plaintiff. 4 Obviously, plaintiff was aware of the entry...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Blake v. Rupe
...case were not preserved for our review by reason of the 60(b) motion. See: McBride v. McBride, Wyo., 598 P.2d 814 (1979); Kennedy v. Kennedy, Wyo., 483 P.2d 516 (1971).5 It is important to note that the cases above dealt with Rule 59 or its progeny, when the rule provided not only that an e......
-
Hopeful v. Etchepare, LLC
... ... entered." MSC v. MCG , 2019 WY 59, ¶ 9, 442 ... P.3d 662, 665 (Wyo. 2019) (quoting Kennedy v ... Kennedy , 483 P.2d 516, 518 (Wyo. 1971)). Here, the ... Hopeful entities correctly argued ... ...
-
MSC v. MCG, S-18-0191
...the oppression of a final judgment ... on a proper showing where such judgments are unfairly or mistakenly entered." Kennedy v. Kennedy , 483 P.2d 516, 518 (Wyo. 1971). "An order denying relief under Rule 60(b) is appealable ...." McBride v. McBride , 598 P.2d 814, 816 (Wyo. 1979). [¶10] Fa......
-
Gifford v. Casper Neon Sign Co., Inc.
...v. Sailors, Wyo., 515 P.2d 974 (1973); Turnbough v. Campbell County Memorial Hospital, Wyo., 499 P.2d 595 (1972); and Kennedy v. Kennedy, Wyo., 483 P.2d 516 (1971). In McBride v. McBride, supra, at 816, the court described the limitations upon the appeal in this " * * * An order denying rel......