Segrest v. State ex rel. Aaron

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

Segrest v. State ex rel. Aaron

640 So. 2d 953, 1994 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 236, 1994 WL 221407

CourtCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama

DecidedMay 27, 1994

DocketAV92000775

StatusPublished

This text of 640 So. 2d 953 (Segrest v. State ex rel. Aaron) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Segrest v. State ex rel. Aaron, 640 So. 2d 953, 1994 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 236, 1994 WL 221407 (Ala. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

THIGPEN, Judge.

After the entry of a final divorce judgment, the husband filed a post-judgment motion on April 14, 1993. That post-judgment motion was denied on July 29,1993, and the husband appealed. The ease action summary sheet discloses “motion to continue” on May 13, 1993, and June 14, 1993; however, those motions are not contained within the record. One cannot ascertain from the record who requested the continuances or whether the parties agreed to extend the time. There is no other indication in the record or briefs regarding why the post-judgment motion was not denied by operation of law 90 days after it was filed. Rule 59.1, A.R.Civ.P. There is simply nothing extending the time for the court to rule on the post-judgment motion. Ex parte Sherer Timber Co., 612 So.2d 467 (Ala.1992). The husband’s notice of appeal was filed more than 42 days after the post-judgment motion was denied by operation of law. Rule 4, A.RApp.P. His appeal is untimely and is due to be dismissed. Rule 2, A.R.App.P.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

ROBERTSON, P.J., and YATES, J., concur.

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

THIGPEN, Judge.

After the entry of a final divorce judgment, the husband filed a post-judgment motion on April 14, 1993. That post-judgment motion was denied on July 29,1993, and the husband appealed. The ease action summary sheet discloses “motion to continue” on May 13, 1993, and June 14, 1993; however, those motions are not contained within the record. One cannot ascertain from the record who requested the continuances or whether the parties agreed to extend the time. There is no other indication in the record or briefs regarding why the post-judgment motion was not denied by operation of law 90 days after it was filed. Rule 59.1, A.R.Civ.P. There is simply nothing extending the time for the court to rule on the post-judgment motion. Ex parte Sherer Timber Co., 612 So.2d 467 (Ala.1992). The husband’s notice of appeal was filed more than 42 days after the post-judgment motion was denied by operation of law. Rule 4, A.RApp.P. His appeal is untimely and is due to be dismissed. Rule 2, A.R.App.P.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

ROBERTSON, P.J., and YATES, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

640 So. 2d 953, 1994 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 236, 1994 WL 221407, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/segrest-v-state-ex-rel-aaron-alacivapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack