W. Boyce v. State DMV

Opinion

MEAL

11/09/2022

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA Case Number: DA 22-0598

DA 22-0598

FILED

WILLIAM DEE BOYCE, NOV 0 9 2022

Petitioner and Appellant, 17c-nnr n Creer < of ' wer

ood Court

S .,nto

v.

ORDER

STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES,

Respondent and Appellee.

Appellee State of Montana, Department of Motor Vehicles, rnoves to dismiss this appeal pursuant to M. R. App. P. 16 because it alleges Appellant William Dee Boyce failed to file a timely Notice of Appeal. Boyce opposes the State's motion, arguing his Notice of Appeal was timely under M. R. App. P. 4(5)(a).

In the underlying litigation, the District Court disrnissed Boyce's Petition Challenging Habitual Traffic Designation via Order on August 11, 2022. On August 22, 2022, Boyce timely rnoved the District Court to alter or amend its decision pursuant to M. R. Civ. P. 59(e). On Septernber 20, 2022, the District Court issued an order denying Boyce's Rule 59(e) motion. Boyce then filed his Notice of Appeal in this Court on October 20, 2022.

In its motion to dismiss, the State argues that under M. R. App. P. 4(5)(a)(i), Boyce needed to file his Notice of Appeal no later than 60 days after the District Court's August 11, 2022 dismissal order, and that his Notice of Appeal was untimely filed 69 days after that order and therefore this Court should dismiss the appeal as untimely.

Boyce responds that M. R. App. P. 4(5)(a)(v) provides that if a party files a motion to alter or amend judgment under M. R. Civ. P. 59(e), then the time for appeal runs from the entry of the order granting or denying that motion. Boyce argues that his Notice of

Appeal, filed 30 days after the District Court's order denying his Rule 59(e) motion is therefore timely.

Boyd is correct. Boyd's Notice of Appeal was timely under the Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure.

IT IS THEREF RE ORDERED that the motion to disrniss is DENIED. DATED this —day of November, 2022.

(7-1

19 ‘ t -

e94 e44 i* ti „ Justices