I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 3 - CT - 0 2 6 9 9 - S CT M ARI LYN BUS

BY v. P A T R IC I A A ND ER S ON

, E X E C UT R I X OF T HE ES TAT E OF W I LL I AM BURNLEY, DECEAS ED ON W RI T OF CE RT I ORARI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 04/ 18/ 2000 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. M AR GAR E T CA RE Y- M CC RA Y COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: W ASHI NGTON COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN T: RI CH AR D L. KI M M EL CH AR LES CAM ERO N A UER SW ALD A T T O R N E Y S F O R A P P E L L E E : R O Y A . S M IT H , J R . TARA S TRI CKLAND CLI F F ORD NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - P ERS ONA L I NJ URY DI S P OS I T I ON: T HE J UDGMENT OF T HE CO UR T OF A P P E A L S IS R E V E R S E D A N D T H IS A PPE A L I S D I SM I SSE D - 04/ 03/ 2008 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: EN BA NC. S M I TH, CH I EF J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1 . M a rily n B u sb y (M a rily n ) su e d W ill iam B u rn ley (W ill iam ) in the W a sh in g to n C o u n ty C i r cui tC our t , al l egi ng t hatW i l l i am’s negl i gence caus ed an acc i dentre s ul t i ng i n i nj ur i es and damages t o M ar i l yn. A j ury tr i al r es ul t ed i n a ver di cti n f avorof W i l l i am. M ar i l yn appea l ed t o thi s Court , a nd w e as s i gned the cas e t o the C our tof A ppeal s , w hi ch reversed and r emanded f

ora ne w tr i al . W i l l i am i s now de cea s ed, buthi s e s t at e ( the Est at e) s eeks r evi ew

### 2

by thi s C our t . B eca us e w e fi nd thatthe not i ce of appea l w as nott i m el y f i l ed, the C our tof A p p e a ls la c k e d ju risd ictio n ; th e re fo re w e re v e rse th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls a n d d ism iss th is a p p e a l, r e in s ta tin g th e fi n a l ju d g m e n t o f t h e W a s h in g to n C o u n ty C ir c u it C o u rt .

F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶ 2 . M a rily n su e d W ill iam in th e W a sh in g to n C o u n ty C irc u it C o u rt in c id e n t to a sin g le vehi cl e ca racc i dent . M ar i l yn w as a pas s eng eri n W i l l i am’s carw hen i tl ef tthe r oad and cr as hed int o a d i t ch on J anuary 18, 1993. M ar i l yn cl ai m ed W i l l i am drove hi s cari n a n e g lig e n t m an n er a n d ca u sed h er to su ffer i n juri es. W il li am d en ied th at he w as n eg li g en t. Th e d i s p u t e we n tt o tr i a l o n M a r c h 3 0 - 3 1 , 2 0 0 0 , wi th t h e j u ry r e tu rn i n g a v e r d i c tf o rW i l l i a m. ¶3 . O n A pr i l 27, 200 0, M a r i l yn f i l e d a pos t -

j ud gmen tm ot i on , by w hi c h s he s ou ghtt o: ( a) r enew herr eques tf

orper empt ory i ns truct i on/ j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw ; ( b) s etas i de the ju ry v erd ictan d va ca te j u d g m en t; (c) for jud g m en t no tw ith stan d ing the v erd ict(JN O V ), oral t ernat i vel y; ( d) a new tr i al ; or( e) t o al t eroramend t he j udgm entf or a ddi tur . W i l l i am res po nd ed to the p ost -j ud gm ent m oti on o n M ay 23 , 2 00 0, an d a heari ng w as hel d o n A ug ust 2 4 , 2 0 0 0 . T h e tr ial co u rtd id n o t ru le on the m o ti o n u n ti l A u g u st 13 , 2 0 0 3 , alm o st th ree y ea rs af t erthe hear i ng, w hen i tover rul ed M ar i l yn’ s m ot i on. T he tr i al court ’ s or derw as notf i l ed u n til A u g u s t 2 1 , 2 0 0 3 . ¶4. O n Sept ember15, 200 3, M ari l yn fi l ed a m oti on foran ext ens i on of t i m e t o f

i l e a n o ti ce o f ap p ea l. T h e m o ti o n a ll eg ed tha t M aril y n d id n o t hav e k n o w ledg e o f th e tri al co u rt ’s rul i ng unt i l Sept ember8, 2003. N o he ar i ng w as he l d on the m ot i on nordi d an or derdenyi ng orgr ant i ng the mot i on appea ri n the r ecor d unt i l af t erthe t i m e f

orf i l i ng had expi r ed. M a ri ly n fi le d h e r n o tic e o f a p p e a l o n O c to b e r 2 0 , 2 0 0 3 .

### Th e dissent’s focu s onthe trial co urt’s ru lingis misplaced . The majo rity co rrectly 1 

### con siders wheth er the M is si ss ipp i Co urt o f Ap peals actedwith in its jurisdictio n whenit requ ested th at the trial co urt ru le onBu sby ’s exp ired mo tionfor anexten sionof time. 3 ¶5 . T he ca s e w as as s i gned t o the Courto f Appe a l s , wher e the Es t a t e cont es t ed t he j ur i s di ct i on of

t he C our targui ng thatM ar i l yn’ s appea l w as unt i m el y. A cknow l edgi ng that M ar i l yn’ s appea l f

el l out s i de the thi r ty- day w i ndow , the C our tof A ppeal s i dent i f

i ed i n t he r ecor d M ar i l yn’ s unres olved m ot i on f oran ext ens i on of

t i m e. T he C our tof

A ppeal s t hen n o tified th e c irc u it c o u rt o f th e u n re so lv e d m o tio n a n d g a v e th e c irc u it co u rt a n o p p o rtu n ity to either g ran t or d en y the m o ti o n . T h e circu itco u rtgran ted M aril y n ’s m o ti o n , an d the C o u rt o f A p p e a ls th e n a ss e rte d its ju risd ictio n a n d c o n sid e re d th e m e rits o f th e a p p e a l, ultim a tely r ever s i ng the tr i al courtand r emandi ng the ca s e f ora new t r i al . T he Est at e now s eeks r evi ew b y th is C o u rt. L E G A L A N A L Y S IS ¶6 . T h is C o u rt ne ed ad d ress o n ly on e issue . T im e ly filing o f a n o tice o f a p p e a l is ju ri s d ic tio n a l. Miss . D e p ’t o f Me n ta l He a lth v. H

a ll , 9 3 6 S o . 2 d 9 1 7 , 9 2 9 (M iss. 2 0 0 6 ). J u ri s d ic tio n is a q u e s tio n o f l a w w h ic h th is C o u rt r e v ie w s d e n o v o . RA SFam il y P artn ers, LP v. Onm a n Bilox i

, LLC , 9 6 8 S o . 2 d 9 2 6 (M iss. 2 0 0 7 ). 1 ¶7. M i s s i s s i ppi Rul e of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e 4( a) r equi r es the not i ce of appea l t o be f

i l ed w i th the cl erk of

the tr i al courtw i thi n thi r ty days af t erthe dat e of

e ntry of the j udgm entor or derbei ng appea l ed. M . R . A . P. 4( a) . R ul e 4( g) al l ow s the tr i al courtt o ext end the t i m e f or fi li n g a no ti ce of ap p ea l u p o n a ti m ely m o ti o n , w h ere g o o d ca u se is sh o w n . M . R . A . P . 4 (g).

### Th e dissent po ints o ut th e ob vio us, th at the “ fo r g o o dc ause sh own” stan dardis 2 

### som ething le ss than the“ exc usa blene gle ct ” st andard. Howeve r, whe the r or not B usby’s action s wo uldhav e met the low er stan dardh ad the trial co urt ruledonher mo tionbefo re its exp irati on is not t

he que stion be for e this Court . Thema jorit y maint ains that

the circ ums tance s of

this cas e fa llbelow what

is nec es sary to sus pend Rul e 4 and that, the re for e, theMis si ss ippiCourt

of Appe al s’ ac ti ons we renot warrant ed.

4 T he tr i al courtm ay gr anta party an addi t i onal thi r ty days i n w hich t o f i l e hi s orhernot i ce o f a p p e a l. M .R .A .P . 4 (g ) a n d c m t. ( 2 0 0 7 ). ¶8. M ar i l yn’ s m ot i on f or an ext ens i on of t i m e t o f i l e a not i ce of appea l w as t i m el y f i l ed, w i thi n thi r ty day s of t he dat e of entry of the j udgm ent . M ar i l yn’ s m ot i on ar gued thatan ext ens i on w as w arr ant ed bec aus e of the del ay i n he rl earni ng of the adve r s e j udgm ent . T he c o m m e n t to R u le 4 sta tes , “M e re fa ilu re to lea rn o f e n try o f th e jud g m e n t i s g e n e ra lly n o t a g ro u n d fo r sh o w in g e x c u sa b le n e g lec t. C o u n se l i n a c a se tak e n u n d e r ad v ise m e n t ha s a d u ty to c h e c k th e d o c k e t re g u lar ly .” M .R .A .P . 4 c m t. 2 ¶ 9 . M a rily n ’s n o tice o f a p p e a l w a s file d o n th e six tieth d a y a n d c o u ld h a v e b e e n tim e ly underthe rul es had t he t r i al cour tgra nt ed herm ot i on and gr ant ed the maxi m um amount of a d d iti o n a l tim e a llo w e d . H o w e v e r, th e c irc u it co u rt d id n o t ru le o n M a rily n ’s m o tio n u n til p ro m p te d b y th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls . ¶10. T hi s C our t has s us pended R ul e 4 on r ar e occa s i ons w her e w arr ant ed. H ow ever , t he f act s of the pr es entcas e do notw arr ants uch ac t i on. T hi s cas e has been pe ndi ng i n t he M i s s i s s i ppi j udi ci al s ys t em form or e than thi r t een ye ar s , s i nce M ar i l yn f i l ed hercompl ai nt o n Ju n e 3 , 1 9 9 4 . In 2 0 0 0 , a jur y re tu rn ed a v erd ictfor W il li am . U p o n the c ir cu itco u rt ’s e n try o f ju d g m e n t, de n y in g M a rily n ’s p o st-ju d g m e n t m o tio n s, M a rily n h a d th irty d a y s in w hich t o fi le a no t i ce of app eal . M ari l yn st at ed thatshe recei ved no t i ce of the ad verse

### 5

j udgm enton S ept ember8. A tt hatt i m e M ar i l yn had thi r t een da ys i n w hi ch t o f i l e a not i ce of appea l , yets he f

ai l ed t o do s o. W hi l e M ar i l yn t i m el y f i l ed a mot i on f

oran ext ens i on of tim e to file a n o tice o f a p p e a l, th e circ u it c o u rt n e ith e r g ra n ted n o r d e n ied th is m o tio n , u n til p ro m p te d b y th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls . ¶11. M ar i l yn had a duty t o di l i gent l y pur s ue hercl ai m , y etshe fai l ed t o see k a w r i t of m a n d a m u s a s p ro v id e d b y R u le 1 5 , fo llo w in g th e c irc u it c o u rt’s d e lay in ru lin g o n h e r p o stj udgm entm ot i ons . N ext , M ar i l yn f ai l ed t o fi l e hernot i ce of appea l w i thi n the thi r ty- day per i od pr es cr i bed by R ul e 4( a) . Fi nal l y, M ar i l yn f ai l ed t o t i m el y f

ol l ow up on he rm ot i on f or an ext ens i on of

t i m e t o fi l e a not i ce of

appeal . T he pr es entl i t i gat i on has been pe ndi ng i n the M iss iss ip p i ju d icia l sy s te m fo r m o re th a n th irtee n y e a rs. D u rin g th a t ti m e , the D e fe n d a n t, W i l l i am, has pas s ed aw ay, l eavi ng hi s E s t at e t o def end i n his st ead. T hes e f act s do not w a rr a n t s u s p e n s io n o f R u le 4 (a ). CO NC L US I ON ¶12. M ar i l yn f

ai l ed t o t i m el y f

i l e her di r ect appea l ; ther ef or e the C our t of A ppeal s di d not h a v e ju risd ictio n to ru le o n th e m e rits o f th e c a se . W e th e re fo re re v e rse th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls a n d d is m is s th e p re s e n t a p p e a l f o r w a n t o f j u ri s d ic tio n . ¶ 1 3 . T H E JU D G M E N T O F T H E C O U R T O F A P P E A L S I S R E V E R S E D A N D T H IS A P P E A L I S D I S M I S S E D . W A L L E R , P .J .,C A R L S O N , D I C K I N S O N , R A N D O L P H A N D L A M A R , J J ., CO NCU R. DI AZ , P. J . , DI SS EN TS W I TH SEPARATE W RI TTEN OPI NI ON J OI NED B Y G R A V E S, J. , A N D JO I N E D I N P A R T B Y E A SL E Y , J. DI AZ , P RE S I DI NG J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG :

### 6

¶14. T he C our tof A ppeal s di d not exce ed i t s a ppel l at e j ur i s di ct i on i n r eques t i ng the tr i al c o u rt to ru le o n B u sb y ’s m o tio n fo r e x ten sio n o f tim e . F u rth e r, b e c a u s e th e trial c o u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in re tro a c tiv e ly g ra n tin g B u sb y ’s m o tio n fo r e x ten sio n o f tim e to file a not i ce of

appea l , the C our tof

A ppeal s di d notl ack j ur i s di ct i on to consi derthe mer i t s of B usby ’s case. T heref

ore, this C ou rthas j uri sdi ct i on t o d eci de thi s case on it s m eri t s. ¶1 5 . T h e m ajority co n clud es th at th is C o u rtca n o n ly ex erc ise j u ri sd ict ion o v er B u sb y ’s a p p e a l if M iss iss ip p i R u le o f A p p e llate P ro c e d u re 4 is s u sp e n d e d . T h e lo g ic b e h in d th is c o n c lu sio n a p p e a rs to b e a s fo llo w s: th a t th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls’ re q u e st th a t th e trial c o u rt ru le on B us by’ s mot i on f

ore xt e ns i on of

t i me t o f

i l e a no t i c e of

a pp e a l w a s i mpr op e r ; t hat b ec au se the requ est w as im p rop er, the tri al co u rt ’s ord er retr o ac ti v ely g ran ti n g B u sb y ’s m o tio n fo r e x ten sio n o f tim e is n u ll an d v o id ; an d th a t b e c a u se B u sb y w a s n o t g ra n ted a v a lid ext ens i on of

t i m e, hernoti ce o f appeal w as nott i m el y f i l ed. T he puzz l i ng partaboutt he m aj ori ty’s ho l ding i s that no explanat i on i s given as t o w hy the C ou rtof A pp ea ls’ reque st thatthe tr i al courtrul e on B us by’ s m ot i on f ore xt ens i on of

t i m e w as i m pr oper ; i ns t ead, t he m aj or i ty s um m ar i l y as s ert s ( i n a f ootnot e) thatthe “Courtof A ppeal s ’ act i ons w er e not w arr ant ed. ” I tappea r s thatthe m aj ori t y f i nds thatthe C our tof

A ppeal s ’ act i ons w er e not w arr anted based o n the f actthat B usby ’s no t i ce of app eal ( atthe p ointi n ti m e w hen the case w as as s i gned t o the C our tof A ppeal s by thi s C our t ) w as nott i m el y f i l ed. I n otherw or ds , t he C our tof A ppeal s ’ j ur i s di ct i on ove rBusby’ s a ppeal w as l i m i t ed t o a det erm i nat i on of w hether

### The m aj ori ty c once des that t he Cour t of Appea ls did not lac k compl et e j uri sdi ction 3 

### over Busby’ s app eal: “The maj ori ty c orr ec tly cons ide rs whether theMis si ss ippiCourt

of Appea ls ac te d within i ts juris dic ti on when i t reque st ed that thetria l c ourt

rul e on Bus by’s exp ired mo tionfor anexten sionof time.” The tri alcourt’ s granting of Bus by’s motion f or an ext ens ion of

timecannot be 4 

### ob jected to onthe g roundthat it w as granted after th e time for filin g anapp eal hadrun . A trial court c an r etroa ctive ly grant a m oti on for

ext ens ion of

timeto f il e a noti ceof a

ppeal, evenafter th e ti me fo r filing the n otice o f app eal has expired . See H a rlow v. G ra n dm a ’s House, I nc. , 730 So. 2d 73, 75- 76 ( M i s s . 1998) . I n H ar low , thi s C our trevi ew ed a t r i al court ’ s or derthatgr ant ed nunc pr o t unc a par ty’ s m ot i on forext ens i on of t i m e t o f i l e a not i ce o f a p p e a l. I

d. at74- 76. W e pr es um ed the tr i al court ’s o rde rr etr oact i vel y gr ant i ng t he m ot i on t o be perm i s s i bl e; and w e w oul d have uphel d t he or derand cons i der ed the mer i t s of the appe al i f

the appe l l anthad s how n thatherf ai l ur e t o f

i l e a t i m el y not i ce of

a ppeal w as t he re s u lt o f e x c u s a b le n e g le c t. See id. at 7 5 -76 . O ther c o u rt s h av e re v iew ed an d u p h eld o rde rs ent er ed by tr i al c our t s r etr oact i vel y gr ant i ng mot i ons f ore xt ens i on of

t i m e t o f i l e a not i ce of a p p e a l. See, e. g. , Mar

x v. L or al

Cor p. , 8 7 F .3 d 1 0 4 9 , 1 0 5 3 -5 4 (9 C ir. 1 9 9 6 ); T ar abis hiv. th McA les terR eg’l

Hos p. , 951 F . 2d 1 55 8, 1 563 n. 3 ( 10 C i r . 1991) . O ne courthas even th re v e rse d a trial c o u rt a n d o rd e re d it t o g ra n t nunc pr o t unc a m o tio n fo r e x ten sio n o f tim e to 

### 7 the s us pens i on of

R ul e 4 w as pr oper , and i texce eded i t s l i m i t ed j ur i s di ct i on by as ki ng t he tr i al courtt o rul e on the mot i on f orext ens i on of

t i m e. 3 ¶16. A l though t he C our tof A ppeal s ’ or dert o the tr i al c our tt o rul e on Busby’ s m ot i on f or ext ens i on of

t i m e w as cert ai nl y ques t i onabl e, I cannotconcl ud e thatthe courtover s t epped the b o u n d s o f i ts j u ri sd ict ion b y m ak ing this requ est. Itg o e s w ith o u t say ing that a c o u rt al w ays has j ur i s di ct i on t o de t erm i ne w hetheri thas j ur i s di ct i on; otherw i s e, w e w oul d notbe cons i der i ng t oday’ s cas e. B y as ki ng the tr i al courtt o r etr oact i vel y rul e on B us by’ s m ot i on forextensi on of t i m e, the C ou rtof A pp eal s w as m erel y determ i ning w hetheritcou l d ex erci se j ur i s di ct i on overB us by’ s appea l ; and, i n m y j udgm ent , thi s re ques tw as a pr operexer ci s e of the court ’ s di s cr et i on t o det erm i ne i f i thad j ur i s di ct i on. M or eover , now thatw e know t hat the tr i al courtw oul d have gr ant ed B us by’ s m ot i on f orext ens i on of

t i m e, and ther ef

or e that hernot i ce of

appea l w oul d have been t i m el y fi l ed, t her e i s no j us t i f i cat i on f orunr i ngi ng t he 4f

il e a n o tic e o f a p p e a l. Consol . Fr ei ghtw ays Cor

p. v. L ars on , 82 7 F . 2d 91 6, 92 1 (3 C ir . rd 1 9 8 7 ). 

### 8 bel l and hol di ng thatherappea l i s barr ed bec aus e hernot i ce of appea l w as nott i m el y f i l ed. F u r th e r , d i s mi s s i n g Bu s b y ’ s a p p e a l b a s e d o n t h e f i c t i o n t h a th e rmo t i o n f

o re x t e n s i o n o f

t i me w a s n o t g ra n ted is m a n ife stly u n fa ir b e c a u se itp u n ish e s h e r fo r th e tri a l co u rt’s f a ilu re to ru le on herm ot i on forex t ensi on of t i m e. A ccor di ngl y, the maj or i ty i s m i s t aken i n concl udi ng that the C o u rtof A p p ea ls co u ld on ly ha v e h ad j u ri sd ict ion t o rule on the m erit s o f B u sb y ’s appea l i f the s us pens i on of

R ul e 4 w as j us t i f

i ed. T he pr operw ay t o deci de the j ur i s di ct i onal i s s ue i s as f

ol l ow s : the C our tof

A ppeal s had ( and thi s C our thas ) j ur i s di ct i on t o rul e on the m er i t s of B us by’ s appea l , i f

the tr i al c our tdi d nota bus e i t s di s cr et i on i n deci di ng thatB us by had show n g oo d cau se f oran ext ens i on of

t i m e. T her ef

or e, I w i l l pr ocee d t o r evi ew the tr i al c o u rt ’s ru lin g th a t B u s b y s h o w e d g o o d c a u s e fo r n o t tim e ly fi lin g h e r n o tic e o f a p p e a l. ¶17. T hi s C our thas adopt ed the f ol l ow i ng s t andar d w hen r evi ew i ng a tr i al court ’ s rul i ng on a mot i on f

oran ext ens i on o f t i m e t o f i l e a not i ce of

appea l : “To t he degr ee thata tr i al j udge’ s deci s i on t o gr antordeny a mot i on f ora n e xt ens i on of

t i m e i s bas ed upon pr ece ptof law , th e sta n d a rd fo r th is C o u rt’s re v iew sh a ll b e ‘p len a ry ’; o th e rw ise , this C o u rt sh a ll sim p ly appl y t he abus e- of

- di s cr et i on s t andar d. ” In re E state of W are , 573 So . 2d 77 3, 77 6 (M i ss. 1990) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed). B eca us e the tr i al courti n thi s cas e di d notgr antB us by’ s m ot i on f oran ext ens i on of t i m e bas ed upon a pr ece ptof l aw , i t s deci s i on t o gr antB us by’ s m ot i on m us tbe r evi ew ed underan abus e- of - di s cr et i on s t andar d. ¶ 1 8 . M iss iss ip p i R u le o f A p p e llate P ro c e d u re 4 (g ) p ro v id e s in p e rtin e n t p a rt:

### 9

T he tr i al courtm ay ext end t he t i m e f orfi l i ng a not i ce of

appeal upon m ot i on f i l ed notl at erthan 30 days af t ert he expi r at i on of

the t i m e otherw i s e pr es cr i bed by t hi s rul e . A ny s uc h mot i on whi c h i s f i l e d be f or e e xp i r a t i on of

t he pr es cr i bed t i m e m ay be gr ant ed f orgood caus e . . . . N ot i ce of any s uch mot i on w hi ch i s f

i l ed bef or e expi r at i on of

the pr es cr i bed t i m e s hal l be gi ven t o other p a rtie s , a n d th e m o tio n sh a ll b e g ra n ted o n ly u p o n a sh o w in g o f e x c u sa b le n e g le c t. M . R . A . P. 4( g) . T he comm ent s t o R ul e 4 s t at e: A m ot i on f

i l ed bef or e t he expi r at i on of the 30 day per i od . . . m ay be gr ant ed fo r a n y “ g o o d c a u s e .” T h is s ta n d a rd is id e n tic a l to th a t f o u n d in R u le 2 6 . . . . I f the mot i on i s notf

i l ed unt i l the ext ens i on pe r i od ha s be gun t o run the bur den r es t s on the appel l antt o s how the f ai l ur e t o f

i l e a t i m el y not i ce w as a r es ul tof “ e x c u s a b le n e g le c t.” M . R . A . P. 4 cm t . B eca us e B us by f i l ed herm ot i on f

orext ens i on of

t i m e w i thi n 30 days of

t he entry of the tr i al j udge’ s or derdenyi ng herpos t - tr i al m ot i ons , s he w as onl y r equi r ed t o pr ove that sh e h ad a “ g o o d ca u se” for fail ing to fi le a ti m ely n o ti ce o f ap p ea l, n o t th at he r fail u re t o per f ecta t i m el y appea l w as attr i but abl e t o “exc us abl e negl ect . ” ¶ 1 9 . B u sb y filed h e r c o m b in e d p o st-tria l m o tio n s o n A p ril 2 7 , 2 0 0 0 , b u t th e trial c o u rt d id notrul e on thos e mot i ons unt i l A ugus t13, 2003. T he court ’ s or derdenyi ng B us by’ s m ot i ons w as notf

i l ed w i th the cl erk unt i l A ugust2 1, 2003. B us by ar gued thatherm ot i on f oran ext ens i on of

t i m e s houl d be gr ant ed bec ause he ratt orney “di d nothave know l edge of nor r ece i ve a c opy of

the C our t ’ s rul i ng unt i l M onday, S ept ember8, 2003. ” I n i t s or derent er ed A pr i l 6, 2006, re tr oact i vel y gra nt i ng B us by’s m ot i on f orext ens i on of

t i m e t o f i l e a not i ce of a p p e a l, th e tr ia l c o u rt d id n o t e x p la in w h y it w a s g ra n tin g th e m o tio n . ¶20. T he comm entt o R ul e 4 st at es t hat“[ m ] er e f ai l ur e t o l earn of

entry of the j udgm ent is g e n e ra lly n o t a g ro u n d fo r s h o w in g ‘e x c u sa b le n e g lec t.’” M .R .A .P . 4 c m t. T h e c o m m e n t, how ever , does notrul e outany r eas on as bei ng a gr ound f ors how i ng good cau se. T o be

### 10

s ur e, “[ c] ouns el i n a cas e t aken underadvi s ementhas a duty t o chec k the docke tr egul ar l y”; nev ertheles s, I canno tsay t hat B usby ’s fai l ure t o learn o f the tr i al cou rt ’s order w as so i nexcus abl e as t o notconst i tut e good caus e. M . R . A . P. 4( g) cmt . U nderthes e f act s , I decl i ne t o fi nd that the tr i al cou rtabu sed i t s di scr et i on i n rul i ng tha tB usby had show n g oo d cau se f ornotf i l i ng a t i m el y not i ce of

a ppeal . I ti s the tr i al court ’ s pr er ogat i ve, notour s , t o deci de w h ethe r t o gran t o r den y a m o ti o n for a n ex tens ion o f t im e. I w o u ld d efe r t o the tri al co u rt ’s det erm i nat i on i n t hi s cas e thatan ext ens i on of t i m e w as w arr ant ed. ¶21. Forthe above r eas ons , the C our tof A ppeal s di d notl ack j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i derthe m eri t s of B usby ’s app eal . A ccordi ng l y, this C ou rtshou l d revi ew the C ou rtof A pp eals’ d e c isio n o n th e m e rits o f th e c a se . I d iss e n t. GRAVE S , J . , J OI NS THI S OP I NI ON. E A S L E Y , J. , JO IN S T H IS O P IN IO N IN P A R T .