Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Supreme Court of the Marshall Islands

Republic of the Marshall Islands v Balos (3) [1988] MHSC 12; 1 MILR (Rev) 120 (4 May 1988)

1 MILR (Rev.) 120

IN THE SUPREME COURT
REPUBLIC OF THE MARSHALL ISLANDS

S.Ct. CIVIL NO. 87-06
(High Ct. Civil No. 1986-044)

REPUBLIC OF THE MARSHALL ISLANDS,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

-v-

LUJANA BALOS, et al.,
Defendant-Appellant.

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

MAY 4, 1988

BURNETT, C.J.

SUMMARY:

An appeal was dismissed, for failure to file the notice of appeal on time. The Court stated it had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal that was not timely filed.

DIGEST:

1. APPEAL AND ERROR – Dismissal, Grounds for – Failure to Give Timely Notice: Timely filing of the notice of appeal is necessary for the appellate court to have jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

2. JUDGMENTS – Conclusiveness and Finality – Fees and Costs: A judgment is final notwithstanding fees and costs have not been settled.

Appeal is taken from judgment entered in the High Court on October 20, 1987. Notice of appeal was filed on November 25, 1987. Appellee has moved to dismiss, on grounds that timely filing is jurisdictional.

Appellants' response is, essentially, that they should be, in some manner, forgiven for delay. Our predecessor, Appellate Division of the High Court of the Trust Territory, has recognized late filing only in a situation where the delay was clearly attributable to fault on the part of Court personnel. Nothing indicates any such fault here.

[1] It is not contested that notice was filed late, but Appellants urge that timely filing is not jurisdictional, since it is based on rule rather than statute; that an amendment of the judgment extended time; and that the late filing should be excused. None of these can be given credence.

First, the filing requirement rests in statute: 6 TTC § 352. Our rules simply follow, and thus adopt, the statutory admonition.

The Trust Territory High Court, Appellate Division, has regularly followed the statute, and held late filing to be jurisdictionally defective.

The "amendment" of the original judgment was clearly an amendment of a purely clerical error, did not affect the basic judgment, and obviously did not work to extend time for appeal.

[2] A suggestion that "fees and costs" must be settled before the judgment is final is equally futile.

I conclude that the Court has no jurisdiction, and that this appeal must be, and hereby is, DISMISSED for lack of appellate jurisdiction.