Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01719/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01719-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

FI LED 

United States Court of Appeals 

'"f,.n,th rirr;_,i;, 

JAN 12 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

GUARANTY NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., 

Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 88-1719 

v. 

JENNINGS TRUCKING SERVICE, INC., 

KRIS KNAUSS, and BILL BELLAMY, 

Defendants-Appelle~s. 

(D.C. No. CIV-87-224-W) 

( W. D. Ok la . ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, TACHA, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

This is an appeal from an order awarding attorneys fees to 

appellees. Appellant does not dispute the amount of attorneys 

fees awarded against it, but rather challenges the authority of 

the court to award attorneys fees pursuant to 36 O.S. 1985 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 88-1719 Document: 01019960566 Date Filed: 01/12/1990 Page: 1 
§ 3629(B). 1 The award of attorneys fees is authorized under 36 

o.s. 1985 § 3629(B). See An-Son Corp. v. Holland-America Ins. 

Co., 767 F.2d 700 (10th Cir. 1985). The mandate shall issue 

forthwith. 

AFFIRMED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

1 Appellee Jennings challenges the jurisdictional basis for 

Guaranty's appeal because the Notice of Appeal was filed more than 

30 days after the entry of the order which set forth the amount of 

attorneys fees to be awarded. Guaranty filed its Notice of Appeal 

on the 35th day after entry of that order and, on the 60th day 

after entry of that order, counsel for Guaranty sought to file a 

motion for extension of time so that its previously filed untimely 

Notice of Appeal would be within the extended time period. The 

Clerk of the district court refused to accept the motion when 

initially tendered because it was not accompanied by a filing fee. 

The motion was accepted for filing on the next business day, 

however, and it was ultimately granted by the district court. 

Although Jennings argues that the district court lacked 

jurisdiction to grant the motion for extension of time because it 

was not accepted for filing until more than 60 days after the 

order was entered from which the appeal is taken, we disagree. A 

motion for extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal does not 

require a filing fee in the Western District of Oklahoma, and, 

accordingly, it should have been accepted by the Clerk of the 

court when it was timely presented. In any event, a Notice of 

Appeal is not to be regarded as untimely merely because its filing 

was rejected for failure to pay a filing fee, and we would apply 

the same rule to a motion for extension of time to file a Notice 

of Appeal. Parissi v. Telechron, Inc., 349 U.S. 46 (1955); 

Brennan v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 330 F.2d 728 (10th Cir. 1964). 

Accordingly, we hold that Guaranty did perfect its appeal of the 

order awarding attorney fees to Jennings. 

- 2 -

Appellate Case: 88-1719 Document: 01019960566 Date Filed: 01/12/1990 Page: 2