645 A.2d 13 | Me. | 1994
Glenn Baxter appeals from a judgment entered in the Superior Court (Kennebec County, Saufley, J.) finding, after a jury-waived trial, that Baxter was liable to Barrett Warren for engaging in an unfair trade practice. 5 M.R.S.A. §§ 205A-214 (1989 & Supp.1993). On appeal, Baxter contends that certain findings underlying the trial court’s judgment are erroneous. Warren claims that Baxter’s appeal is untimely and has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. We dismiss Baxter’s appeal.
The trial court’s judgment was entered on June 7, 1993. On June 10, 1993, Baxter fried with the trial court a motion entitled “Request for Final Order.”
The trial court’s judgment of June 7, 1993 disposed of all of the pending claims and counterclaims, and was unmistakably a final judgment. There was no need for a “final order” requested by Baxter in his motion of June 10, 1993. Baxter’s motion of June 10 was not a notice of appeal, whose content is specifically provided for in M.R.Civ.P. 73(b),
The entry is:
Appeal dismissed.
All concurring.
. This motion reads:
Defendant hereby requests a FINAL ORDER in order to facilitate APPEAL to the Maine State Supreme Judicial Court.
. Baxter represented himself in these proceedings. That pro se status does not entitle him to preferential treatment in the application of our rules. Uotinen v. Hall, 636 A.2d 991, 992 (Me.1994); Gurschick v. Clark, 511 A.2d 36 (Me.1986).
. Rule 73(b) provides in pertinent part:
... The notice of appeal shall specify the parties taking the appeal and shall designate the judgment or part thereof appealed from. The notice of appeal is a pleading for the purposes of Rule 11....
. If the court had viewed the June 10 “request for final order” as tantamount to a notice of appeal, it would not have felt the necessity to grant Baxter an extension of time to file an appeal. Such a rewriting of the document by the court would have been inconsistent with prior case law. C.f. Harris Baking Co. v. Mazzeo, 294 A.2d 445, 448-49 (Me.1972). "In such circumstances, we consider it an impermissible stretching of fact and of legal concept to transform a document clearly designed to function as other than a notice of appeal into that which it was not in fact intended to be.”
.Rule 73(a) provides, in pertinent part:
... The time within which an appeal may be taken shall be 30 days from the entry of the judgment appealed from unless a shorter time is provided by law, except that: (1) upon a showing of excusable neglect the court in any action may extend the time for filing the notice of appeal not exceeding 30 days from the expiration of the original time herein prescribed, _ The running of the time for appeal is terminated by a timely motion made pursuant to any of the rules hereinafter enumerated, and the full time for appeal fixed in this subdivision commences to run and is to be computed from the entry of any of the following orders made upon a timely motion under such rules: granting or denying a motion for judgment under Rule 50(b); or making findings of fact or conclusions of law as requested under Rule 52(a); or granting or denying a motion under Rule 52(b) to amend or make additional findings of fact, whether or not an alteration of the judgment would be required if*15 the motion is granted; or granting or denying a motion under Rule 59 to alter or amend the judgment; or denying a motion for a new trial under Rule 59;....