Opinion ID: 854217
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: this court’s precedents

Text: The majority‟s decision relies on two 40-year-old decisions of this court: Peacock Hill Assn. v. Peacock Lagoon Constr. Co. (1972) 8 Cal.3d 369 (Peacock Hill), and Rooney v. Vermont Investment Corp. (1973) 10 Cal.3d 351 (Rooney). Those two decisions were wrong then, are wrong now, and should be overruled. As the majority notes, both Peacock Hill, supra, 8 Cal.3d 369 and Rooney, supra, 10 Cal.3d 351, implicitly held that an invalid notice of appeal filed by a corporation suspended for failure to pay taxes is, upon reinstatement of the corporation, retroactively validated. (See maj. opn., ante, at pp. 6-8.) Not at all considered by the Peacock Hill majority, however, was this core appellate rule: The filing of a timely and valid notice of appeal is a prerequisite for appellate jurisdiction. Instead, the majority there simply cited certain cases as holding that in “a number of situations” a suspended corporation‟s reinstatement served to validate “otherwise invalid prior action.” (Peacock Hill, supra, at p. 371.) The cited cases, none of which involved appellate court subject matter jurisdiction, are: Traub Co. v. Coffee Break Service, Inc. (1967) 66 Cal.2d 368, Diverco Constructors, Inc. v. Wilstein (1970) 4 Cal.App.3d 6, A. E. Cook Co. v. K S Racing Enterprises, Inc. (1969) 274 Cal.App.2d 499, and Duncan v. Sunset Agricultural Minerals (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d 489. (Peacock Hill, supra, at p. 371.) The decision in Rooney, supra, 10 Cal.3d 351, came a year after Peacock Hill, supra, 8 Cal.3d 369, which Rooney, without any analysis, cited with approval for the proposition that reinstatement of a suspended corporation “permitted it to proceed with the appeal.” (Rooney, supra, at p. 359.) 3 Because the filing of a timely and valid notice of appeal is necessary to give the appellate court jurisdiction over the appeal, failure to file such a notice results in an irrevocable forfeiture of the litigant‟s right to appeal. In my view, this forfeiture cannot be vacated or cured by later events, such as reinstatement of corporate powers by payment of delinquent taxes, and I would therefore overrule the two decisions of this court — Peacock Hill, supra, 8 Cal.3d 369 and Rooney, supra, 10 Cal.3d 351 — that held to the contrary. But because those decisions may have been relied on by the bench and bar, I would, for reasons of fairness, apply the rule I propose to future cases only. (See, e.g., Smith v. Rae-Venter Law Group (2002) 29 Cal.4th 345, 372; Woods v. Young (1991) 53 Cal.3d 315, 330.) Solely on this basis, I agree with the majority‟s disposition here. KENNARD, J. 4 See next page for addresses and telephone numbers for counsel who argued in Supreme Court. Name of Opinion Bourhis v. Lord __________________________________________________________________________________ Unpublished Opinion Original Appeal Original Proceeding Review Granted XXX no opn. filed Rehearing Granted __________________________________________________________________________________ Opinion No. S199887/S199889 Date Filed: March 4, 2013 __________________________________________________________________________________ Court: Superior County: Marin Judge: James R. Ritchie __________________________________________________________________________________ Counsel: Bourhis & Mann, Ray Bourhis, Lawrence Mann; Smith & McGinty, Daniel U. Smith and Valerie T. McGinty for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Brydon Hugo & Parker, Edward R. Hugo, Heidi K. Hugo and Jeffrey Kaufman for Defendants and Respondents. 1 Counsel who argued in Supreme Court (not intended for publication with opinion): Edward R. Hugo Brydon Hugo & Parker 135 Main Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 808-0300 2