Opinion ID: 1175539
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Certification of the Record on Appeal

Text: Cowitz contends that the board did not comply with Alaska Appellate Rule 210(f)(5) and (6), and that unless counsel receives a certificate pursuant to subsection (6), a party cannot be found to have received notice. Consequently, until counsel receives a certificate indicating that the record on appeal is complete, the 30-day filing deadline for briefs does not begin to run. Rule 210(f)(5) states: The clerk shall prepare, sign and attach to the record on appeal a certificate containing the following: a table of contents which shall list each document and exhibit contained in the record on appeal with corresponding volume and page numbers where each such document may be found, and a brief description of each exhibit indicating if the exhibit is a physical exhibit which will not be transmitted pursuant to subsection (1) of this rule; the date upon which the preparation of the record was completed; and the dates upon and manner in which notice of such completion of the record was given by the clerk and the names of the parties or their attorneys to whom such notice was given. Rule 210(f)(6) states that: Promptly upon the completion of the record on appeal, the clerk shall give notice thereof to all parties to the judgment and to the clerk of the appellate courts, by sending them a copy of the certificate referred to in paragraph (5). The board did not strictly comply with Rules 210(f)(5) and (6). Instead of preparing a certificate, a board officer prepared and attached to the record a letter. The board record itself had a table of contents, and the letter included the dates and manner of notification to the parties. Cowitz's attorney received the letter informing him that the complete file had been sent to the superior court. The only requirement that the board failed to meet is that it omitted to state the date upon which the preparation of the record was completed. While Cowitz's attorney did not receive a certificate as required by Rule 210(f)(6), he did receive notice that the record was complete. Rule 212(a) allows an appellant 30 days to file his brief after notice of certification of the record has been served. Had he only been a month or two late in submitting his brief, the board's failure to issue a certificate might be a valid excuse for Cowitz. Here, however, a year and a half after receiving notification that the record was complete, Cowitz's attorney was still waiting for a certificate. He does not claim that the board's technical failure led him to believe that the record was not complete; he asserts simply that because he received no certificate, he is justified in failing to file a brief for eighteen months. Given the circumstance that the board substantially complied with Rules 210(f)(5) and (6), and the fact that Cowitz does not claim to have relied on the board's technical deviation, we conclude that the superior court's dismissal of Cowitz's appeal should not be reversed on this basis.