Opinion ID: 2369942
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Bickerton

Text: Final judgment under Rule 54(b) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure was entered for Bickerton on July 20, 1989. [2] Thus plaintiffs' twenty-day appeal period under Rule 4(a) [3] of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure began on July 20, and ended on August 9. At the beginning of September plaintiffs moved for a thirty-day extension to file an appeal, as allowed under Rule 4(a). Thirty days from August 9 is September 8. The plaintiffs' motion was heard on September 7. The motion calendar justice declined to rule on the motion at that time, stating that to grant a thirty-day extension under Rule 4(a), he had to consider the likelihood of success and thus the merits of the case. Clearly this was error since the standard query for granting a Rule 4(a) extension is whether there is excusable neglect for failing to appeal in a timely fashion. In any event the motion justice continued the hearing so that the justice who granted summary judgment could consider the extension motion. The plaintiffs' counsel objected to continuing the matter because a continuance would leave the motion undecided as of September 8, the last possible appeal date. On September 12 the justice who granted summary judgment found excusable neglect under Rule 4(a) and granted a thirty-day extension. His order was signed nunc pro tunc to September 7. The plaintiffs filed their appeal September 12. We hold that the trial justice had no authority to grant a Rule 4(a) extension nunc pro tunc. We recognize that plaintiffs attempted to have their motion decided before September 8, the last possible appeal day. Nevertheless, the trial justice was without authority to nunc pro tunc his extension on September 12. We expressly decline to follow the Federal Court practice which allows timely filed extension motions to be considered and granted after the appeal time has passed. [4]