CHUUK STATE SUPREME COURT APPELLATE DIVISION
Cite as Chuuk State Land Mgt. v. Jesse, 22 FSM R. 43(Chk. S. Ct. App. 2018)
CHUUK STATE LAND MANAGEMENT,
Appellant,
vs.
YUSER JESSE,
Appellee.
CSSC-APPEAL-NO. 001-2015
PARTIAL DISMISSAL ORDER
Argued: September 10, 2018
Decided: September 24, 2018
BEFORE:
Hon. Jayson Robert, Associate Justice, Presiding
Hon. Bethwell O'Sonis, Temporary Justice*
Hon. Daniel Rescue Jr., Temporary Justice*
Larry Wentworth
Associate Justice
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant:
Sabino S. Asor, Esq.
Attorney General
Office of the Chuuk Attorney General
P.O. Box 1050
Weno, Chuuk FM 96942
For the Appellee:
Jack Fritz, Esq.
P.O. Box 788
Weno, Chuuk FM 96942
* * * *
Chuuk Appellate Procedure Rule 4(a)(1) provides that in a civil case, in which an appeal is permitted by law as of right, the notice of appeal must be filed with the clerk of the trial division within 30 days after the date of the entry of the judgment or order appealed from. Chuuk State Land Mgt. v. Jesse, 22 FSM R. 43, 46 (Chk. S. Ct. App. 2018).
The trial division, upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause, may extend the time for filing a notice of appeal, upon motion filed not later than 30 days after the expiration of the time set by Rule 4(a), but no such extension can exceed 30 days past that time or 10 days from the date of
entry of the order granting the motion, whichever occurs later. Chuuk State Land Mgt. v. Jesse, 22 FSM R. 43, 46 (Chk. S. Ct. App. 2018).
An order may be amended, at any time, to include the prescribed statement and permission to appeal may be sought within 10 day after entry of the order as amended by filing a petition for permission to appeal with the appellate division clerk within 10 days after the entry of such order with proof of service on all other parties to the action in the court from which appeal is being taken. Chuuk State Land Mgt. v. Jesse, 22 FSM R. 43, 46 (Chk. S. Ct. App. 2018).
The timely filing of a notice of appeal is jurisdictional. The appellate court must dismiss an appeal that was untimely filed no matter how meritorious the appellant's claims are. Chuuk State Land Mgt. v. Jesse, 22 FSM R. 43, 46 (Chk. S. Ct. App. 2018).
The well-established general rule is that only final judgment decisions may be appealed. A final decision is generally one which ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment. Chuuk State Land Mgt. v. Jesse, 22 FSM R. 43, 46 (Chk. S. Ct. App. 2018).
A final decision generally is one that ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment. Explained differently, an order is not final when the substantial rights of the parties to the action remain undetermined and when the cause is retained for further action. A decision reserving certain questions for future determination or direction cannot ordinarily be final for the purposes of appeal. Chuuk State Land Mgt. v. Jesse, 22 FSM R. 43, 46 (Chk. S. Ct. App. 2018).
The submission of post-judgment motions is irrelevant for the purposes of extending the time of appeal. Chuuk State Land Mgt. v. Jesse, 22 FSM R. 43, 47 (Chk. S. Ct. App. 2018).
When an August 12, 2014 judgment disposed of all the questions within the post-judgment motion and left nothing as to a review or compliance with its order to be disposed of in the future, the order on that motion was a final order, and the appellant had 30 days to appeal the order but when it failed to appeal within that time limit, the appellate division lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review that motion. Chuuk State Land Mgt. v. Jesse, 22 FSM R. 43, 48 (Chk. S. Ct. App. 2018).
When, on February 19, 2015, the appellant appealed from a February 11, 2015 post-judgment order, it fell within the allowable time-frame for appeal and the appellate division has subject matter jurisdiction to review only that February 11, 2015 trial division order. Chuuk State Land Mgt. v. Jesse, 22 FSM R. 43, 48 (Chk. S. Ct. App. 2018).
* * * *
LARRY WENTWORTH, Associate Justice:
JAYSON ROBERT, Associate Justice, Presiding:
Appellee Yuser Jesse filed a motion to have this Court dismiss the underlying appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction alleging that Appellant Chuuk State Land Management filed its Notice of Appeal after the time frame required by the Chuuk State Rules of Appellate Procedure. For the reasons stated, this Court Grants this Motion as to two final orders appealed from and denies this Motion as to another.
1. Whether Appellant failed to submit a timely notice of appeal following the final decision in the matter before the trial Court and therefore the Appellate Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear this matter as concerning the November 6, 2013 Order.
2. Whether Appellant failed to submit a timely notice of appeal following the final decision on a post-judgment motion in the matter before the trial Court and therefore the Appellate Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear this matter as concerning the August 12, 2014 Order denying Motion to Disqualify.
3. Whether Appellant submitted a timely notice of appeal following the final decision on a post-judgment motion in the matter before the trial Court and therefore Appellate Court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear this matter as concerning the February 11, 2015 Order Denying Dismissal of Judgment.
The Trial Division of the Chuuk State Supreme Court entered an order on the merits of the above-appealed case on November 6, 2013. Appellant Chuuk State Land Management (herein after Land Management) filed a Motion to set aside judgment on January 14, 2014, and it was denied on February 21, 2014. On May 30, 2014, Land Management filed a motion for relief from judgment – which was denied on June 16, 2014. On June 11, 2014 Land Management filed a Motion to Void Judgment and Disqualify Trial Judge. On August 12, 2014, the Court denied that motion. On July 11, 2014, Land Management again filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which the Court denied on February 11, 2015. On February 19, 2015, Land Management filed a Notice of Appeal regarding the judgment and orders denying the disqualification of Judge and order denying motion to void judgment.
This case had a number of preliminary motions filed in the last few years. Most notably, Appellee's Motion to Dismiss Appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as a result of failure to file a timely Notice of Appeal.
At a preliminary matter hearing on September 10, 2018, the parties agreed that this remained the most important preliminary issue within this case. When the Court inquired on whether the parties wished to have the Court hear any preliminary matters, the Appellant had not made mention of his motion to stay trial court's judgment. It appears that the issue is currently moot and the Court will issue a ruling only upon request. Likewise, Appellee mentioned that he had no interest in pursuing his motion to strike appellee's briefs and to dismiss the case on failure to follow procedural courts, so long
as Appellant served Appellee the brief and transcript as required by this Court's order. Remaining before this Court is the issue of subject matter jurisdiction to hear the points of appeal.
A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Timeliness of Notice of Appeal
Rule 4(a)(1) of the Chuuk State Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that in a civil case in which an appeal is permitted by law as of right the notice of appeal required by Rule 3 shall be filed with the clerk of the State Court Trial Division within 30 days after the date of the entry of the judgment or order appealed from. The State Court Trial Division, upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause, may extend the time for filing a notice of appeal upon motion filed not later than 30 days after the expiration of the time prescribed by this Rule 4(a). Chk. App. R. 4(a)(5). No such extension shall exceed 30 days past such prescribed time or 10 days from the date of entry of the order granting the motion, whichever occurs later. Id. An appeal from an interlocutory order may be sought by filing a petition for permission to appeal with the clerk of the State Court Appellate Division within 10 days after the entry of such order with proof of service on all other parties to the action in the court from which appeal is being taken. An order may be amended to include the prescribed statement at any time, and permission to appeal may be sought within 10 day after entry of the order as amended. Chk. App. R. 5(a).
The timely filing of a notice of appeal is jurisdictional. Mori v. Dobich, 15 FSM R. 12, 13-14 (Chk. S. Ct. App. 2007). The appellate court must dismiss an appeal that was untimely filed no matter how meritorious the appellant's claims are. Id. (citing Bualuay v. Rano, 11 FSM R. 139, 145 (App. 2002). (which stands for the fact that An appellate court has jurisdiction over an appeal only if it is timely filed. The time limit set by Rule 4(a)(1) is jurisdictional, and if that time is not extended by a timely motion to extend that time period under Rule 4(a)(5), the appellate division is deprived of jurisdiction to hear the case – also referring to the equivalently-worded Rule 26(b) of the FSM Appellate Rules which provides that a Court may suspend the requirements of the rules other than those governing the timeliness of a Notice of Appeal).
B. Finality of Judgments
The general rule is that appellate review of a trial court case is limited to the trial court's final orders and judgments. Bossy v. Wainit, 15 FSM R. 30, 33 (Chk. S. Ct. App. 2007) (citing Chuuk v. Davis, 9 FSM R. 471, 473 (App. 2000)). The timely filing of a notice of appeal from a final order or judgment is jurisdictional, Bualuay v. Rano, 11 FSM R. 139, 145 (App. 2002). The Bossy v. Wainit Court dismissed the underlying appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction for untimeliness – and noted that the time to file a notice of appeal began once the final judgment on the merits was entered. The well-established general rule is that only final judgment decisions may be appealed. A final decision generally is one which ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment. In re Extradition of Jano, 6 FSM R. 23, 24 (App. 1993). Explained differently, "Generally, an order is not final where the substantial rights of the parties involved in the action remain undetermined and where the cause is retained for further action. Accordingly, a decision reserving certain questions for future determination or direction cannot ordinarily be final for the purposes of appeal." Stephen v. Chuuk, 17 FSM R. 453, 460 (App. 2011) (citing 4 AM. JUR. 2D Appellate Review § 90, at 714 (1995)). Where a trial court disposes of a post judgment motion for writ of garnishment and fully adjudicates the questions (before it), and has not retained for itself the power to review compliance with the order at a specific later date, the trial court's order is final. Stephen, 17 FSM R. at 460.
Rule 60(b) of the Chuuk State Rules of Civil Procedure observes, when referring to Motions of Relief from Judgment, that a motion under this subdivision (b) does not affect the finality of a judgment or suspend its operation.
A. November 6, 2013 Final Order on the Merits
Past decisions of this Court clearly establish that the November 6, 2013 judgment that found in favor of Yuser Jesse was a final judgment. This matter is indistinguishable from the published appeal in Mori v. Dobich, which also involved final judgment on a land dispute issued in 1998, and a 2001 post-judgment motion order – the appeal which this Appellate Division dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as a result of a late filing of a notice of appeal as to both orders. See generally Mori v. Dobich, 15 FSM R. 12 (Chk. S. Ct. App. 2007).
As required by Rule (4)(a)(1) of the Chuuk State Rules of Appellate Procedure, and further highlighted within Bossy v. Wainit, the time frame to file the Notice of Appeal began on November 6, 2013. The Appellant had 30 days after November 6, 2013 to make a timely appeal on the judgment within the underlying case, or to seek an extension within another thirty days of that time frame with the trial court to file a notice of appeal. Appellant Land Management failed to do either.
Although Land Management submitted a number of post-judgment motions, their submission is irrelevant for the purposes of extending the time of appeal on the November 6, 2013 judgment on the merits – as further suggested by Rule 60(b) of the Chuuk States Rules of Civil Procedure. If the Rules had intended to extend the time for appeal on a decision after each post-trial motion, they would have set the time frame for appeals for a year or more – in that manner incorporating the time frame for the filing of all post-judgment motions. The Rules however, have set the time-frame at 30 days following a "final judgment" without consideration of extensions for appeal as a result of post-trial motions. While Appellant has filed a myriad of post-trial motions – as allowed by the rules, they occurred after the final judgment and bear no consequent to the expiration for the time of the appeal.
For similar reasons, the Mori court noted that it had no jurisdiction over another attempt to appeal four years after final judgment was entered, even though such appeal was launched after an order on a post-judgment motion was issued a couple of months before. Mori v. Dobich, 15 FSM R. 12 (Chk. S. Ct. App. 2007). The issues raised in Mori on appeal also involved allegations of serious errors in law as well as lack of subject matter jurisdiction on a dispute that concerned the ownership of a parcel of land. See id. Moreover, that Court heard sympathetic allegations by the appellant as to having been abandoned by their counsel after the decision at the trial level was entered as the excuse for the late filing. The Mori Court dismissed that appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and set the precedent that governs the matter before this Court today.
The period for appeal on that judgment expired in December 2013. It is curious that Appellant's counsel was the undersigned attorney of representation in an FSM Supreme Court case which dismissed a case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as a result of a notice of appeal that was filed one day late. Ruben v. Chuuk, 18 FSM R. 604, 608 (App. 2013). The Court is certain that Appellant will not experience much surprise in learning that the Chuuk State Supreme Court likewise lacks subject matter jurisdiction over an appeal filed nearly two years past the time frame require for jurisdiction to be exercised by this appellate court over that final decision.
B. August 12, 2014 Order Denying Post-Judgment Motion 1
Few decisions establish the status of post-judgment motions within the Chuuk Appellate Jurisprudence. Such motions can be filed within a year once the requirements of Rule 60 are met. However, Stephen v. Chuuk reveals that where a Trial Court disposes of a post judgment motion before it and fully adjudicates the questions (before it), and has not retained for itself the power to review compliance with the order at a specific later date, the trial court's order is final.
Although Stephen addressed the issue of a post-judgment motion regarding garnishment, this Court finds the reasoning equally persuasive as concerning the underlying Motion to Disqualify the Judge which was filed in June 2014 and disposed of in August 2014. The August 12, 2014 judgment disposed of all the questions within the post-judgment motion and left nothing as to a review or compliance with its order to be disposed of in the future. Therefore, the order on that motion was a final order. Appellant had 30 days to appeal the motion and had failed to set an appeal. This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review the disqualification of a judge and void judgment motion for that reason.
Finally, Appellant's argument that he had raised a collateral attack in that motion is not relevant as to the lack of subject matter jurisdiction of this court as a result of a failure to make a timely appeal. Rule 60(b) of the Chuuk State Rules of Civil Procedure provides for collateral attacks to commence within the trial division as governed by such rules, but not through an untimely filed appeal within the Appellate Division.
C. February 11, 2015 Order Denying Post-Judgment Motion 2
Appellant also appears to appeal the Order issued on February 11, 2015 which Denied Appellant's Post-Trial Motion to Dismiss Judgment for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. As Appellant filed his Notice of Appeal regarding this Post-Judgment Motion on February 19, 2015, it fell within the allowable time-frame for appeal. Thus, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction only to review the trial division's order from February 11, 2015, which denied motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The Court now finds that Appellant failed to submit a timely notice of appeal following the final decision in the matter before the trial Court and therefore the Appellate Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear this matter as concerning the November 6, 2013 Order. This Court also finds that Appellant failed to submit a timely notice of appeal following the final decision on a post-judgment motion in the matter before the trial Court and therefore the Appellate Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear this matter as concerning the August 12, 2014 Order denying Motion to Disqualify. Further, this Court finds that Appellant submitted a timely notice of appeal following the final decision on a post-judgment motion in the matter before the trial Court and therefore Appellate Court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear this matter as concerning the February 11, 2015 Order Denying Dismissal of Judgment.
The Appellant has until Wednesday September 19, 2018 to provide his brief, record of appeal copy, and a copy of transcript to Appellee. Appellee has 45 days, from the time Appellant serves all of these documents to Appellee, to file Appellee's Brief with the Court.
The parties may request to schedule a hearing on other preliminary matters through motion if such a hearing is needed.
* * * *