Opinion ID: 2451189
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Griswold's appeal is untimely.

Text: The parties' disagreement centers around what is meant by judgment in Appellate Rule 204(a)(1). The City argues that the superior court's May 14, 2009 Decision on Appeal is the relevant judgment for the purposes of the rule, and that Griswold's December 23, 2009 notice of appeal therefore fell outside the rule's 30-day window. [15] Griswold argues that the superior court's December 16, 2009 Final Judgment is the relevant judgment, and that his notice of appeal is therefore timely under the rule. The City's argument is correct. It touches on an important distinction between cases where the superior court acts as a trial-level court and cases where the superior court acts as an intermediate appellate court. Where the superior court acts as a trial-level court, an opinion or decision is not a judgment for the purposes of Appellate Rule 204(a)(1): The judgment referred to in Appellate Rule 204(a)(1) is the judgment that, per Civil Rule 58, must be set forth on a separate document and that is to be entered after the court makes its decision. [16] For example, we held that an appeal was timely where the superior court entered final judgment more than one year after it granted summary judgment on all claims, and the appellant filed her appeal within 30 days of the entry of that final judgment. [17] Specifically, the final judgment entered under Civil Rule 58not the order granting summary judgmentwas the judgment to which Appellate Rule 204(a)(1) referred. [18] When the superior court acts as an intermediate appellate court, however, it must follow different procedural rules. These rules are contained in Part Six of the Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure. Under Part Six's Appellate Rule 601(c), procedure in appeals to the superior court shall be governed by the provisions of Parts Two and Five, which are the rules for the other Alaska appellate courts, such as the Court of Appeals and this court. Under Appellate Rule 507(a), which is contained in Part Five, [t]he opinion of the appellate court ... shall constitute its judgment. Therefore, where the superior court acts as an intermediate appellate court, there is no requirement that it enter final judgment on a separate document. Civil Rule 58 does not apply in such cases. [19] The separate document rule [20] cannot apply to cases where the superior court acts an intermediate appellate court, notwithstanding the fact that the superior court did enter final judgment on a separate document in this case. We therefore clarify that where the superior court acts as an intermediate appellate court, under Appellate Rule 507(a) its opinion or decision on appeal is the judgment to which Appellate Rule 204(a)(1) refers. Thus, Griswold's appeal is not timely.