Budget-Easy, Inc. v. Burd

Missouri Court of Appeals

Budget-Easy, Inc. v. Burd

539 S.W.2d 740, 1976 Mo. App. LEXIS 2117

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 22, 1976

DocketNo. 10340

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 539 S.W.2d 740 (Budget-Easy, Inc. v. Burd) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Budget-Easy, Inc. v. Burd, 539 S.W.2d 740, 1976 Mo. App. LEXIS 2117 (Mo. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

On December 10, 1975, a Howell County jury returned a verdict favoring respondent corporation. Appellants filed an alternative motion to set aside the verdict or for a new trial on December 29, 1975, 19 days after the verdict. Appellants’ notice of appeal was filed April 2, 1976.

Rule 78.04, V.A.M.R., requires motions for new trial to be filed within 15 days of the jury verdict. The rule further provides that, “[i]f a timely motion for new trial . is filed, the judgment is not final until disposition of all such motions.” (Em[741]*741phasis added). Here, appellants relied upon an untimely motion for new trial which did not delay the judgment from becoming final 30 days after the verdict was returned. Rule 81.05(a), V.A.M.R. Appellants’ notice of appeal was filed well beyond the 10-day limitation. Rule 81.04, V.A.M.R.

We are duty bound to determine the timeliness of the notice of appeal because this court does not acquire appellate jurisdiction in the absence of a timely notice of appeal. Kuhn v. Bunch, 529 S.W.2d 200(1) (Mo.App.1975).

The appeal is dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

On December 10, 1975, a Howell County jury returned a verdict favoring respondent corporation. Appellants filed an alternative motion to set aside the verdict or for a new trial on December 29, 1975, 19 days after the verdict. Appellants’ notice of appeal was filed April 2, 1976.

Rule 78.04, V.A.M.R., requires motions for new trial to be filed within 15 days of the jury verdict. The rule further provides that, “[i]f a timely motion for new trial . is filed, the judgment is not final until disposition of all such motions.” (Em[741]*741phasis added). Here, appellants relied upon an untimely motion for new trial which did not delay the judgment from becoming final 30 days after the verdict was returned. Rule 81.05(a), V.A.M.R. Appellants’ notice of appeal was filed well beyond the 10-day limitation. Rule 81.04, V.A.M.R.

We are duty bound to determine the timeliness of the notice of appeal because this court does not acquire appellate jurisdiction in the absence of a timely notice of appeal. Kuhn v. Bunch, 529 S.W.2d 200(1) (Mo.App.1975).

The appeal is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

539 S.W.2d 740, 1976 Mo. App. LEXIS 2117, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/budget-easy-inc-v-burd-moctapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack