A.S. v. R.S., 2017 UT 77 (Nov. 14, 2017).
Nov 14, 2017
The Utah Supreme Court dismissed this appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. The timeliness of the notice of appeal hinged on the timeliness of a Rule 59 motion for new trial, which appellant relied on to toll the time for appeal. Appellant had filed his memorandum in support just before midnight on the deadline to do so, but the motion was not filed until just after midnight the following day. Utah’s electronic filing system and its guidelines establish that the filing date and time is when a filing is received and posted in the electronic system, even if there are technical difficulties that created a delay from the actual filing. The court held that the motion filed shortly after midnight was untimely, even though the memorandum was filed before midnight. The memorandum did not constitute a “motion”; and Rule 6(b)(2) prohibited the district court from extending the time for father to file his Rule 59 motion.