Sherer Timber Co., Inc. v. Sherer

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

Sherer Timber Co., Inc. v. Sherer

612 So. 2d 467, 1991 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 679, 1991 WL 270007

CourtCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama

DecidedDecember 20, 1991

Docket2900249

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 612 So. 2d 467 (Sherer Timber Co., Inc. v. Sherer) 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

Sherer Timber Co., Inc. v. Sherer, 612 So. 2d 467, 1991 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 679, 1991 WL 270007 (Ala. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

In this workmen's compensation case, a final judgment was entered on June 19, 1990, in favor of James H. Sherer (employee) against Sherer Timber Company, Inc. (employer). On July 2, 1990, the employer filed an A.R.Civ.P., Rule 59 motion. The case action summary sheet reflects that on August 2, 1990, the Rule 59 motion was "continued by agreement." On August 31, 1990, the employee filed an objection to the Rule 59 motion.

The case action summary sheet further reflects that on November 14, 1990 (123 days after the motion was filed), the motion was set for December 3, 1990. The Rule 59 motion was argued on that date and ultimately denied by the trial court on December 18, 1990. Notice of appeal was filed by the employer on January 29, 1991, along with an affidavit by a deputy clerk concerning the August 2, 1990, continuance.

Rule 59.1, A.R.Civ.P., provides that no post-judgment motion shall remain pending in the trial court beyond 90 days, "unless with the express consent of all the parties, which consent shall appear of record. . . ." The express consent, by either party, to continue this Rule 59 motion beyond the 90-day period does not appear of record. Consequently, the Rule 59 motion was denied by operation of law on September 30, 1990, and the employer had 42 days from the date on which the motion was deemed denied under Rule 59.1, A.R.Civ.P., in which to appeal.Harrison v. Alabama Power Co., 371 So.2d 19 (Ala. 1979). The January 29, 1991, notice of appeal was well beyond that time period and was untimely. The timely filing of notice of appeal is a jurisdictional act, and unless the notice is filed within the applicable period of Rule 4, A.R.App.P., we are without jurisdiction to reach the merits of the case.Harrison.

This appeal is due to be dismissed.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

RUSSELL, J., concurs.

THIGPEN, J., recused.

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

In this workmen's compensation case, a final judgment was entered on June 19, 1990, in favor of James H. Sherer (employee) against Sherer Timber Company, Inc. (employer). On July 2, 1990, the employer filed an A.R.Civ.P., Rule 59 motion. The case action summary sheet reflects that on August 2, 1990, the Rule 59 motion was "continued by agreement." On August 31, 1990, the employee filed an objection to the Rule 59 motion.

The case action summary sheet further reflects that on November 14, 1990 (123 days after the motion was filed), the motion was set for December 3, 1990. The Rule 59 motion was argued on that date and ultimately denied by the trial court on December 18, 1990. Notice of appeal was filed by the employer on January 29, 1991, along with an affidavit by a deputy clerk concerning the August 2, 1990, continuance.

Rule 59.1, A.R.Civ.P., provides that no post-judgment motion shall remain pending in the trial court beyond 90 days, "unless with the express consent of all the parties, which consent shall appear of record. . . ." The express consent, by either party, to continue this Rule 59 motion beyond the 90-day period does not appear of record. Consequently, the Rule 59 motion was denied by operation of law on September 30, 1990, and the employer had 42 days from the date on which the motion was deemed denied under Rule 59.1, A.R.Civ.P., in which to appeal.Harrison v. Alabama Power Co., 371 So.2d 19 (Ala. 1979). The January 29, 1991, notice of appeal was well beyond that time period and was untimely. The timely filing of notice of appeal is a jurisdictional act, and unless the notice is filed within the applicable period of Rule 4, A.R.App.P., we are without jurisdiction to reach the merits of the case.Harrison.

This appeal is due to be dismissed.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

RUSSELL, J., concurs.

THIGPEN, J., recused.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

612 So. 2d 467, 1991 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 679, 1991 WL 270007, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sherer-timber-co-inc-v-sherer-alacivapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack