Moe v. Moe

Decision Date13 September 1990
Docket NumberNo. 900106CA,900106CA
Citation460 N.W.2d 411
PartiesRobert E. MOE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Nancy MOE n/k/a Nancy Kerzman, Defendant and Appellee. Civ.
CourtNorth Dakota Court of Appeals

Mack, Moosbrugger, Ohlsen, Dvorak & Carter, Grand Forks, for plaintiff and appellant; argued by Shirley A. Dvorak.

McConn, Fisher, Olson & Daley, Grand Forks, for defendant and appellee; argued by Tim Fisher, 3rd year law student. Appearance by Richard W. Olson.

PER CURIAM.

Robert Moe appealed from a Third Amended Judgment and Decree entered by the district court on December 29, 1989, modifying the child support provisions of a prior judgment. We dismiss the appeal.

The appellee, Nancy Moe, requests us to dismiss this appeal on the ground that Robert failed to file a timely notice of appeal.

Although there is no record evidence that a notice of entry of the Third Amended Judgment and Decree was served upon Robert, his attorney conceded during oral arguments that such notice was mailed on December 29, 1989, and was received on January 2, 1990. Service by mail is complete upon mailing. Rule 5(b), N.D.R.Civ.P. ; Rule 25(c), N.D.R.App.P. Consequently, the service of notice of entry of the judgment was completed on December 29, 1989, the date Robert concedes that the notice was mailed to him.

Pursuant to Rule 4, N.D.R.App.P., a notice of appeal must be filed with the clerk of the trial court "within 60 days of the date of the service of notice of entry of the judgment or order appealed from." Because the notice of entry of the judgment was mailed to Robert, he was entitled to an additional three days within which to file a timely notice of appeal. Rule 6(e), N.D.R.Civ.P. In computing the time period in which Robert was required to file the notice of appeal, the date that the notice was mailed to him is not included in the computation. Rule 6(a), N.D.R.Civ.P. Thus, the time period is counted from December 30, 1989, and the 63 day period for filing a timely appeal expired on Friday, March 2, 1990.

Robert mailed the notice of appeal on March 2, 1990, but it was not received or filed by the clerk of the trial court until Monday, March 5, 1990. Filing is not timely unless the papers are received by the clerk within the time fixed for filing. Rule 25(a), N.D.R.App.P. We conclude, therefore, that the appeal was not timely.

The time limit for filing a notice of appeal under Rule 4(a), N.D.R.App.P., is mandatory and jurisdictional. Bye v. Federal Land Bank...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Rueckert v. Rueckert
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • 11 May 1993
    ...upon mailing, and filing, which requires actual receipt. See Dehn v. Otter Tail Power Co., 248 N.W.2d 851 (N.D.1976); Moe v. Moe, 460 N.W.2d 411 (N.D.Ct.App.1990); see also Blades v. United States, 407 F.2d 1397 (9th Cir.1969); Holmes v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc., 488 S.W.2d 311 (Mo.Ct.App......
  • Paxton v. Wiebe
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • 15 September 1998
    ...filed and that mailing does not satisfy this filing requirement. See Filler v. Bragg, 559 N.W.2d 225, 227 (N.D.1997); Moe v. Moe, 460 N.W.2d 411, 412 (N.D.Ct.App.1990). ¶12 In Schaff v. Kennelly, 61 N.W.2d 538, 543 (N.D.1953), this Court analogized the making of a motion to the commencement......
  • Guardianship and Conservatorship of Norman, Matter of, 930310
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • 2 September 1994
    ...6(e), N.D.R.Civ.P., affords the adverse party an additional three days in which to serve and file the answer brief. See, Moe v. Moe, 460 N.W.2d 411 (N.D.Ct.App.1990). Rule 3.2 states that requests for oral argument are to be made (not served) within five days of the expiration of the time f......

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