Opinion ID: 2116083
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: parmar's filing by counsel

Text: However, Parmar argues that the poverty affidavit filed on July 24, 1997, was effective for 45 days according to rule 1B(4) and, therefore, was still in effect when his counsel filed the notice of appeal on August 29. The State disagrees, contending that Parmar was obliged to file a new poverty affidavit after judgment was rendered, according to § 25-1912. The question is whether a poverty affidavit that predates the trial court's final order is sufficient to perfect an appeal therefrom. Rule 1B(4) provides that once a notice of appeal and docket fee or poverty affidavit have been filed with the clerk of the district court, the clerk must send the Supreme Court a [c]heck of the clerk of the district court for docket fee, or copy of a poverty affidavit which has been executed no more than 45 days prior to the filing of notice of appeal.... (Emphasis supplied.) The key distinction between § 25-1912 and rule 1B(4) is that the statute sets forth the period within which certain documents must be filed, whereas the rule sets forth the period within which a poverty affidavit must be executed. Executed simply means signed. Black's Law Dictionary 567 (6th ed.1990). Thus, rule 1B(4) requires only that the affidavit be signed and notarized no more than 45 days prior to the filing of the notice of appeal. It says nothing as to when the affidavit must be filed. Moreover, § 25-1912 states that the docket fee and, consequently, the poverty affidavit must be deposited in the office of the clerk of the district court within thirty days after the rendition of the judgment, decree, or final order. See American Legion Post No. 90 v. Nebraska Liquor Control Commission, supra . Thus, according to the plain language of § 25-1912, the poverty affidavit must be filed after the entry of the final order. Therefore, a poverty affidavit is insufficient to perfect an appeal unless it is filed during the 30-day period following the rendition of judgment. We conclude that Parmar's July 24, 1997, poverty affidavit was insufficient to perfect Parmar's appeal, because it was filed prior to the entry of the final order.