Mosley v. Mosley
190 Cal. App. 4th 1096
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- The last possible day to file a notice of appeal from an appealable order is 180 days after the signed order is filed; this outside limit is jurisdictional and unextendable.
- Here, an April 1, 2010 file-stamped order was not served, not entered in the court file or the public records, and remained inaccessible for months.
- Wife discovered the order only after it was located and entered into the court file in August–September 2010, then served a conformed copy in September 2010.
- Wife filed her notice of appeal on October 1, 2010, within 180 days of the order’s later public entry but beyond the file-stamped date.
- Rule 8.104 and related statutes define when an order is entered and when a notice of appeal must be filed; the timing is jurisdictional and typically fixed by public filing/entry terms.
- The court must assess whether the 180-day outside limit can be applied when the file-stamped order was not publicly accessible on that date and was later found and entered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 180-day outside limit runs from the file-stamped date if the order was not publicly accessible. | Mosley argues the outside limit can be reset by public accessibility. | Mosley contends the limit is fixed by the file-stamped date regardless of public access. | The outside limit can be rebutted when the order was not publicly accessible on the file-stamped date. |
| Whether Wife rebutted the presumption that the order was filed on the file-stamped date. | Wife shows no public record on April 1, 2010. | Recordkeeping errors do not affect filing date; the order was filed on April 1. | Wife rebutted the presumption by showing non-public status on the file-stamped date. |
| Whether open-records/public-access principles apply to extend the time for appeal. | Public access supports treating the record as timely for appeal. | Open-records do not override statutory deadlines. | Public-access principles support extending the time to appeal where the record was not public. |
| Whether appellate jurisdiction requires avoiding absurd results by treating filing date as public-record date. | Filing date should be public to preserve jurisdiction and right of appeal. | Filing date should be the recorded filing irrespective of public access. | The 180-day limit is interpreted to avoid absurd results and preserve the constitutional right of appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kimball Avenue v. Franco, 162 Cal.App.4th 1224 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (dismissed for lack of jurisdiction when appeal filed long after judgment; outside 180-day period from entry applies when no notice of entry was served; external limit governs, not judgment status.)
- Van Beurden Ins. Services, Inc. v. Customized Worldwide Weather Ins. Agency, Inc., 15 Cal.4th 51 (Cal. 1997) (jurisdictional time limits cannot be extended.)
- Alan v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 40 Cal.4th 894 (Cal. 2007) (context matters; remedial approach to extending appellate rights.)
- In re Marriage of Nicholas, 186 Cal.App.4th 1566 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (public records presumption; open access to court records.)
- Estate of Hearst, 67 Cal.App.3d 777 (Cal. Ct. App. 1977) (public records principle in open access.)
- Hollister Convalescent Hosp., Inc. v. Rico, 15 Cal.3d 660 (Cal. 1975) (remedial approach to appellate rights.)
- Ten Eyck v. Industrial Forklifts Co., 216 Cal.App.3d 540 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989) (filing concept not include entry of judgment in the record for 60-day rule.)
- County of Los Angeles v. Ranger Ins. Co., 26 Cal.App.4th 61 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (file-stamped date may control entry when placement in the file precedes official entry.)