Smith v. Canada, 6763.
| Decision Date | 08 June 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 6763.,6763. |
| Citation | 305 A.2d 521 |
| Parties | Trina D. SMITH, a minor, by her mother, Karen Canada, Appellant, v. Dorothea CANADA, Appellee. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Wesley S. Williams, Jr., Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before KELLY, GALLAGHER and PAIR, Associate Judges.
This is an action for custody of a minor child, Trina D. Smith, brought by her mother, Karen Canada, against appellee (defendant) Dorothea Canada. The child had lived with appellee virtually since birth. Custody of the child was awarded to appellee. In so doing the trial court wrote a persuasive memorandum opinion accompanied by an order dated May 11, 1972. Thereafter, on July 18, 1972, appellant filed a motion to vacate that order invoking Super.Ct.Civ.R. 59 (new trial) and 60(b). The motion was denied by the trial court on August 18, 1972, and notice of appeal was for the first time filed September 6, 1972. We do not reach the merits of this appeal, however, for reasons which will appear.
This court's appellate rule (D.C. App.R. 4(II) (a)) requires that a notice of appeal be filed wihin 30 days from entry
of judgment unless the time for filing notice of appeal is tolled under D.C.App.R. 4(II) (a)(2) or extended under D.C.App.R. 4(II)(a) by timely filing of certain posttrial motions in Superior Court. A motion for a new trial under Super.Ct.Civ.R. 59 (b) must be filed within 10 , on the other hand, need only lie filed within a reasonable time. Super.Ct.Civ.R. 60(b), however, does not toll the time for filing an appeal to this court. Harris v. Harris, D.C.App., 304 A.2d 635 (1973); Beach v. District of Columbia, D. C.Mun.App., 44 .A.2d 926 (1945). Since appellant's notice of appeal was not timely filed and it is apparent that appellant sought to utilize a tardy motion to vacate the judgment in its stead, we have no reasonable alternative but to dismiss the appeal.
So ordered.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wallace v. Warehouse Employees Union
...judgment, Coleman v. Lee Washington Hauling Co., 388 A.2d 44, 47 (D.C. 1978); a motion under Rule 60(b) does not, Smith v. Canada, 305 A.2d 521, 522 (D.C. 1973), and our review is limited to whether or not the trial court abused its discretion in denying the Rule 60(b) motion. Joseph v. Par......
-
FRAIN v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
...judgment, Coleman v. Lee Washington Hauling Co., 388 A.2d 44, 47 (D.C. 1978); a motion under Rule 60(b) does not, Smith v. Canada, 305 A.2d 521, 522 (D.C. 1973). We must therefore determine whether the motion was timely and, if not, whether equitable considerations require us to treat it as......
-
Jackson v. US
...50(b), 52(b), 58 or 59(a) are motions listed in D.C.App.R. 4(a), and therefore toll time to note an appeal); Smith v. Canada, 305 A.2d 521, 522 (D.C.1973) (motion for reconsideration under Super.Ct.Civ.R. 60(b) does not toll time to note an appeal); In re A.B., 486 A.2d 1167, 1168 (D.C.1984......
-
Dublin v. United States
...for clerical errors may be corrected by motion under Rule 60(a). 5. This conclusion is consistent with our opinions in Smith v. Canada, D.C.App., 305 A.2d 521 (1973) and Harris v. Harris, D.C.App., 304 A.2d 635 (1973). In each case we held that a motion under Super.Ct.Civ.R. 60(b) ("Relief ......