Petersen v. Petersen

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Petersen v. Petersen

352 N.W.2d 797, 1984 Minn. App. LEXIS 3402

CourtCourt of Appeals of Minnesota

DecidedAugust 7, 1984

DocketC9-84-622

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 352 N.W.2d 797 (Petersen v. Petersen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Petersen v. Petersen, 352 N.W.2d 797, 1984 Minn. App. LEXIS 3402 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

FOLEY, Judge.

Petersen attempts to appeal from a dissolution judgment. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

FACTS

The judgment and decree dissolving the marriage of Paul and Mary Petersen was entered January 6, 1984. Appellant Paul Petersen, acting pro se, filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals on April 4, 1984. The notice did not include proof of service on respondent Mary Petersen or the clerk of the trial court. Appellant served respondent with notice of appeal on April 10, 1984, but did not serve notice on the clerk of the trial court.

ISSUE

Where appellant’s notice of appeal is incomplete and not timely filed, does the Court of Appeals have jurisdiction to consider the matter?

ANALYSIS

Rule 104.01, Minn.R.Civ.App.P., provides that an appeal from a judgment may be taken within 90 days of entry of the' judgment. Appellant failed to serve respondent with notice of his appeal within the 90 day limit. Therefore, his appeal was not timely filed and this court has no jurisdiction to consider the matter. Appellant’s notice of appeal was also defective in that it did not include proof of service on the adverse party and the clerk of the trial court, as required by Rule 103.01, Minn.R. Civ.App.P. Nor is there any basis for discretionary review.

DECISION

Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

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

OPINION

FOLEY, Judge.

Petersen attempts to appeal from a dissolution judgment. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

FACTS

The judgment and decree dissolving the marriage of Paul and Mary Petersen was entered January 6, 1984. Appellant Paul Petersen, acting pro se, filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals on April 4, 1984. The notice did not include proof of service on respondent Mary Petersen or the clerk of the trial court. Appellant served respondent with notice of appeal on April 10, 1984, but did not serve notice on the clerk of the trial court.

ISSUE

Where appellant’s notice of appeal is incomplete and not timely filed, does the Court of Appeals have jurisdiction to consider the matter?

ANALYSIS

Rule 104.01, Minn.R.Civ.App.P., provides that an appeal from a judgment may be taken within 90 days of entry of the' judgment. Appellant failed to serve respondent with notice of his appeal within the 90 day limit. Therefore, his appeal was not timely filed and this court has no jurisdiction to consider the matter. Appellant’s notice of appeal was also defective in that it did not include proof of service on the adverse party and the clerk of the trial court, as required by Rule 103.01, Minn.R. Civ.App.P. Nor is there any basis for discretionary review.

DECISION

Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

352 N.W.2d 797, 1984 Minn. App. LEXIS 3402, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/petersen-v-petersen-minnctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack