Opinion ID: 1820206
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether Chasity's appeal is untimely.

Text: ¶ 11. Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) provides that [a] motion to alter or amend the judgment shall be filed not later than ten days after entry of the judgment.  Miss. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (emphasis added). This ten-day requirement is absolute, and the court is not permitted to extend this time period. Miss. R. Civ. P. 59(e) cmt. Only if a party files a timely motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59 does the time for appeal for all parties ru[n] from the entry of the order disposing of the last such motion outstanding. Miss. R.App. P. 4(d). Otherwise, the notice of appeal required by Rule 3 shall be filed with the clerk of the trial court within 30 days after the date of entry of the judgment or order appealed from. Miss. R.App. P. 4(a). That thirty-day requirement is inflexible in the case sub judice as, in civil cases, the time for taking an appeal as provided in Rules 4 or 5 may not be extended. Miss. R.App. P. 2(c). ¶ 12. On June 12, 2007, Chasity filed a Motion for Reconsideration [11] of the June 1, 2007, order of the chancery court. Applying the time-computation standards outlined in Mississippi Rule of Appellate Procedure 26(a), Chasity's motion should have been filed no later than Monday, June 11, 2007. See Miss. R.App. P. 26(e); Miss. R. Civ. P. 59(e). As such, William contends that Chasity's time for filing an appeal commenced on June 1, 2007, and, as she did not file notice of appeal until sixty-eight days later, on August 8, 2007, her appeal is barred as untimely. Chasity responds that this issue is procedurally barred as [b]efore an issue can be presented to this Court, it must first be presented to the trial court. ¶ 13. This Court finds that Chasity's Motion for Reconsideration was untimely. However, there is no evidence in the record that William either objected or responded to Chasity's Motion for Reconsideration. The Mississippi Court of Appeals addressed a similar issue in Scally v. Scally, 802 So.2d 128 (Miss.Ct.App.2001), stating: [t]his Court does not review matters on appeal that were not first raised at the trial level. Shaw v. Shaw, 603 So.2d 287, 292 (Miss.1992). Before an issue can be presented to this Court, it must first be presented to the trial court. This is done by an objection. Queen v. Queen, 551 So.2d 197, 201 (Miss.1989). A timely objection brings the issue to the court's attention, and gives it the opportunity to address the issue. Kettle v. State, 641 So.2d 746, 748 (Miss.1994). Scally, 802 So.2d at 132. Based upon that same reasoning, this Court concludes that William is procedurally barred from raising this issue for the first time on appeal.