21 FSM R.604

FSM SUPREME COURT APPELLATE DIVISION

Cite as Setik v. FSM Dev. Bank, 21 FSM R. 604(App. 2018)

MARIANNE B. SETIK, individually and as
Administratrix of the ESTATE OF RAYMOND
SETIK, and HEIRS OF RAYMOND SETIK,

Appellants,

vs.

FSM DEVELOPMENT BANK,

Appellees.

APPEAL CASE NO. P6-2016
APPEAL CASE NO. P11-2015
APPEAL CASE NO. P4-2015
(consolidated)
APPEAL CASE NO. P4-2015

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING

Decided: June 20, 2018

BEFORE:

Hon. Larry Wentworth, Associate Justice, FSM Supreme Court
Hon. Cyprian J. Manmaw, Specially Assigned Justice, FSM Supreme Court*
Hon. Mayceleen J.D. Anson, Specially Assigned Justice, FSM Supreme Court**

*Chief Justice, Yap State Court, Colonia, Yap
**Associate Justice, Pohnpei Supreme Court, Kolonia, Pohnpei

APPEARANCES:

        For the Appellants:               Yoslyn G. Sigrah, Esq.
                                                    P.O. Box 3018
                                                     Kolonia, Pohnpei FM 96941

* * * *

[21 FSM R.605]

HEADNOTES

Appellate Review – Rehearing

A petition for rehearing may be denied as untimely when untimely filed and not accompanied by a request for enlargement of time. Setik v. FSM Dev. Bank, 21 FSM R. 604, 605 (App. 2018).

* * * *

COURT'S OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Our opinion and the judgment in this matter was entered on May 1, 2018. On May 23, 2018, the appellants filed their petition for rehearing. Appellate Rule 40(a) provides that "[a] petition for rehearing may be filed within 14 days after entry of judgment unless the time is shortened or enlarged by order." The appellants have not moved for an enlargement of time to file this petition. It is therefore untimely. A petition for rehearing may be denied as untimely when untimely filed and not accompanied by a request for enlargement of time. Berman v. College of Micronesia-FSM, 15 FSM R. 612, 613 (App. 2008); Goya v. Ramp, 14 FSM R. 305, 307 (App. 2006). No such request accompanied the petition.

Accordingly, we deny this petition for rehearing as untimely.

Furthermore, we have carefully reviewed and have determined that we have neither overlooked nor misapprehended any points of law or fact. Stephen v. Chuuk, 17 FSM R. 496, 499 (App. 2011); Berman v. Pohnpei, 17 FSM R. 464, 465 (App. 2011); Damarlane v. Pohnpei Legislature, 15 FSM R. 529, 529 (App. 2008); Iriarte v. Etscheit, 8 FSM R. 263, 264 (App. 1998); Nena v. Kosrae (II), 6 FSM R. 437, 438 (App. 1994).

* * * *