Opinion ID: 1318460
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: was schneider's appeal timely filed?

Text: Summary Judgment was granted August 21, 1984, final judgment entered October 2, 1985 and Schneider's appeal filed November 1, 1985. Pay'N Save claims that Schneider's appeal is untimely because it was not filed within thirty days of the August 21 order granting summary judgment. Schneider contends that the time to file her appeal started when final judgment was entered on October 2 and therefore her appeal on November 1 is timely. Appellate Rule 204(a)(1) requires that a notice of appeal be filed within thirty days from the date of the judgment appealed from. The question is what is a judgment for the purposes of an Appellate Rule 204(a)(1) appeal? Civil Rule 58 provides, in part, that upon making a decision, the court shall forthwith enter judgment. Specifically, the rule requires that every judgment entered by the court shall be set forth on a separate document. Accordingly, the judgment which is referred to in Appellate Rule 204(a)(1) is a document which is separate from any opinion, memorandum or order the court may issue. See 6A. J. Moore, J. Lucas, and G. Grother, Jr., Moore's Federal Practice § 58.02.1, at 58-19 (2d ed. 1984) (hereinafter J. Moore). The separate document provision in Civil Rule 58 was added to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in 1963 and to Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure in 1983. Alaska Supreme Court Order 544 (Eff. 1983). The reason for the addition was to prevent any uncertainty concerning the date a judgment becomes final and effective, for the purposes of determining when the time limitations for post verdict motions and appeals begins to run. 6A J. Moore, supra, § 58.02.1, at 58-19. United States v. Indrelunas, 411 U.S. 216, 93 S.Ct. 1562, 36 L.Ed.2d 202 (1973) illustrates the separate document rule. In Indrelunas, two taxpayers sued for a refund on their taxes. Verdicts were returned for the taxpayers and entered on the court's civil docket. Several months after the docket entry, the district court entered formal judgments. When the government appealed from the judgments, the court of appeals dismissed the appeal as untimely, holding that the judgment had been rendered at the time of the docket entry. The United States Supreme Court reversed, holding that the date when the relief was entered as a formal judgment on a separate document was the date when the appeal may be taken. The Court stated that the separate document provision must be mechanically applied in order to avoid new uncertainties as to the date on which a judgment is entered. 411 U.S. at 222, 93 S.Ct. at 1565, 36 L.Ed.2d. at 207. [3] We adopt the rule announced in Indrelunas and apply it to this case. Like the taxpayers in Indrelunas, Pay'N Save was awarded relief on one date but final judgment was entered at a much later time. We conclude that October 2, 1985, when the formal judgment was entered on a separate document, triggered the appeal process for Schneider. Therefore, Schneider's appeal was timely because it was filed within thirty days of the October 2, 1985 entry of judgment. [4]