City National Bank v. Main and West, LLC

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

City National Bank v. Main and West, LLC

103 A.3d 141, 2014 R.I. LEXIS 136

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedNovember 5, 2014

Docket2014-22-Appeal

StatusUnpublished

This text of 103 A.3d 141 (City National Bank v. Main and West, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City National Bank v. Main and West, LLC, 103 A.3d 141, 2014 R.I. LEXIS 136 (R.I. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

The plaintiff, City National Bank, appeals from the denial of its motion to issue an execution on the judgment entered in its favor in Superior Court. This case came before the Supreme Court at a session in conference pursuant to Article I, Rule 12A(8)(b) of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure. At this time, we proceed to decide this case without further briefing and argument.

This appeal is not properly before the Court. Under “[Article I,] Rule 4(a) [of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure], a notice of appeal must be filed ‘within twenty (20) days of the date of the entry of the judgment.’ ” Iozzi v. City of Cranston, 52 A.3d 585, 588 (R.I.2012) (quoting Rule 4(a)). “It is well settled that ‘the time specified in Rule 4(a) is mandatory, and that once the prescribed time has passed there can be no review by way of appeal.’ ” Id. (quoting Wachovia Bank v. Hershberger, 911 A.2d 278, 279-80 (R.I.2006) (mem.)).

Several months after judgment was entered in its favor in this case, the plaintiff filed a motion to issue execution, which was denied by an order entered on August 2, 2013. The plaintiff then filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by an order entered on September 17, 2013. The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on October 16, 2013. The plaintiff’s appeal from the order denying its motion to issue execution is clearly untimely.

Even if the appeal period were considered to begin running upon entry of the order denying the plaintiffs motion for reconsideration, the appeal would have been untimely. Nevertheless, we again caution that motions to reconsider do not serve as a substitute for a party’s failure to file a timely appeal. See Turacova v. DeThomas, 45 A.3d 509, 515 (R.I.2012) (citing Gray v. Stillman White Co., 522 A.2d 737, 740 (R.I.1987)).

Accordingly, the plaintiffs appeal is denied and dismissed.

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

ORDER

The plaintiff, City National Bank, appeals from the denial of its motion to issue an execution on the judgment entered in its favor in Superior Court. This case came before the Supreme Court at a session in conference pursuant to Article I, Rule 12A(8)(b) of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure. At this time, we proceed to decide this case without further briefing and argument.

This appeal is not properly before the Court. Under “[Article I,] Rule 4(a) [of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure], a notice of appeal must be filed ‘within twenty (20) days of the date of the entry of the judgment.’ ” Iozzi v. City of Cranston, 52 A.3d 585, 588 (R.I.2012) (quoting Rule 4(a)). “It is well settled that ‘the time specified in Rule 4(a) is mandatory, and that once the prescribed time has passed there can be no review by way of appeal.’ ” Id. (quoting Wachovia Bank v. Hershberger, 911 A.2d 278, 279-80 (R.I.2006) (mem.)).

Several months after judgment was entered in its favor in this case, the plaintiff filed a motion to issue execution, which was denied by an order entered on August 2, 2013. The plaintiff then filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by an order entered on September 17, 2013. The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on October 16, 2013. The plaintiff’s appeal from the order denying its motion to issue execution is clearly untimely.

Even if the appeal period were considered to begin running upon entry of the order denying the plaintiffs motion for reconsideration, the appeal would have been untimely. Nevertheless, we again caution that motions to reconsider do not serve as a substitute for a party’s failure to file a timely appeal. See Turacova v. DeThomas, 45 A.3d 509, 515 (R.I.2012) (citing Gray v. Stillman White Co., 522 A.2d 737, 740 (R.I.1987)).

Accordingly, the plaintiffs appeal is denied and dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 A.3d 141, 2014 R.I. LEXIS 136, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-national-bank-v-main-and-west-llc-ri-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack