SPECIAL TERM OPINION
FACTS
The Commissioner of Public Safety appeals an order filed June 13,1997, rescinding the revocation of the driver’s license of respondent Albert A. Garcia. The appeal was served and filed by mail on July 29, 1997. Respondent moves to dismiss the appeal as untimely on the ground that he served -a notice of filing of the June 13,1997, order by mail on June 25, 1997. Appellant opposes the motion. Respondent also moves to strike appellant’s response to the motion as untimely-
DECISION
Any party аggrieved by the decision of the reviewing court in an implied consent proceeding may appeal the decision as provided in the rules of appellate procedure. Minn.Stat. § 169.123, subd. 7 (1996). An implied consent proceeding is a “special proceeding” and an appeal from an order rescinding or sustaining the revocation is taken under Minn. R. Civ.App. P. 103.03(g).
Knut-son v. Commissioner of Pub. Safety,
Except as otherwise provided by statute, аn appeal from a final order in a special proceeding must be taken within 30 days after service by the adverse party of written notice of filing. Minn. R. Civ.App. P. 104.01, 104.03. Three days are added to the prescribed period if service of thе document triggering the period is by mail. Minn. R. Civ.App. P. 125.03. If respondent’s notice of filing was effective in this case, the time to appeal the June 13, 1997, order expired on July 28, 1997, which was 33 days after the notice was served by mail on June 25, 1997. Therefore, a nоtice of appeal filed July 29, 1997, would have been untimely. Appellant argues, however, that service of the notice was ineffective to initiate the appeal period because the minimum requirements for a notice оf filing were not met. We conclude that appellant is correct.
Service of the notice of filing is essentially а timing mechanism (to limit appeal time), rather than a means to advise the other party that a decision or order has been filed.
See Rieman v. Joubert,
Standing alone, respondent’s purported notice would not have been sufficient to limit the appеal time because the cover letter is not captioned as a notice of filing and does not indicate thе date of filing or otherwise describe the order.
1
See In re Estate of Opsahl,
In County Ditch No. 11, this court held that an appeal from a judgment in a drainage proceeding was untimely, because the appeal *313 was not taken within 80 days after entry of judgment as required by the aрplicable statute. Id. at 56. Alternatively, this court indicated that even if a different appeal time was not providеd by statute, the appeal still would have been untimely under the appellate rules because respondent’s сover letter enclosing and serving “the findings and order executed * ⅜ * on June 24, 1993,” accompanied by a copy of the judgment, was effective to limit the time for appeal. Id. at 57.
While respondent relies on
County Ditch No. 11
in support of his argument that notice of filing was sufficient, we find that rеliance to be misplaced. Our indication in
County Ditch No. 11
that the cover letter and attachments would be construed as a whole was not intended to excuse careless drafting of the notice, or to endorse substitution of some other doсument for a proper notice of filing. We clarify now that service of a simple cover letter that does nоt contain the minimum elements for a notice of filing does not limit the appeal time merely because the lettеr is accompanied by a copy of the order or judgment. Our holding is consistent with the purpose of the notice оf filing to definitely and unambiguously notify the opposing party of the commencement of the appeal periоd.
See Duluth Ready-Mix Concrete, Inc. v. City of Duluth,
In this case, respondent’s cover letter is not captioned as a notice of filing and does not give the date of filing or provide any information about the order except to indicate that it relаtes to the named proceeding. Because the cover letter does not contain any indication of whаt has been filed or when, the purported notice did not limit the time to appeal even though it was accomрanied by a copy of the order.
Respondent also seeks to strike as untimely appellant’s response to the motion to dismiss. We must reject respondent’s argument on this issue. Responses to motions served by mail are due within eight days, аnd appellant’s response to the motion to dismiss is, in fact, untimely. However, moving parties must establish substantial prejudicе to obtain an order striking an untimely response.
In re Welfare of D.B.,
Motion to dismiss denied; motion to strike appellant’s response denied.
Notes
. The entire text of the cover letter read as follows:
Enсlosed herein and served upon you by U.S. Mail please find Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order relating to the above-captioned matter.