Court Opinion

ID: 9845461
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:22:32.158927+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:08.555930
License: Public Domain

GREENE, Judge,
dissenting.
Because I believe Rule 26 of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure mandates the proper procedure for service of a Rule 3 notice of appeal, I dissent.
Rule 3 mandates the filing of a notice of appeal, as a general proposition, to be within 30 days after entry of judgment. N.C.R. App. P. 3(c)(1). Service of the notice of appeal must be made on all other parties to the appeal pursuant to Rule 26.1 N.C.R. App. P. 3(e); Shaw, 49 N.C. App. at 459, 271 S.E.2d at 561 (rejecting argument that notice of appeal is timely served if done so after filing the notice of appeal); Smith v. Smith, 43 N.C. App. 338, 339, 258 S.E.2d 833, 835 (1979) (Rule 26 “prescribes the proper procedure for service of the notice of appeal”), disc. review denied, 299 N.C. 122, 262 S.E.2d 6 (1980). Rule *33726(b) has been construed to require the notice of appeal to be served “on the same day as” it is filed. Smith, 43 N.C. App. at 340, 258 S.E.2d at 835. These filing and service requirements are jurisdictional and failure to follow them requires dismissal of the appeal. Crowell Constructors, Inc. v. State, 328 N.C. 563, 563, 402 S.E.2d 407, 408 (1991) (per curiam).
I do not believe that Hale v. Afro-American Arts Int’l, Inc., 335 N.C. 231, 232, 436 S.E.2d 588, 589 (1993) (per curiam) overrules this long-established relationship between Rule 3 and Rule 26. The single issue in Hale was whether the appeal must be dismissed when the record on appeal did not show the notice of appeal had been served on the other parties to the appeal. The Hale Court held this defect in the record on appeal should have been raised prior to settling the record on appeal and the failure to timely raise the issue constituted a waiver. I do not read Hale to hold that service of the notice of appeal may be waived by the party entitled to the service. Indeed, I do not read the majority opinion in this case to hold that service of the notice of appeal can be waived.2
In this case, the record on appeal shows the filing of the notice of appeal occurred within the thirtyrday period prescribed in Rule 3(c) and that service of the notice of appeal did not occur at or before the time of the filing, as required by Rule 26(b). Defendant moved to dismiss the appeal on this basis in the trial court and also in this Court. Accordingly, as the service defect appears on the face of the record, I would dismiss plaintiffs appeal for failure to comply with Rules 3 and 26.

. If Rule 26 is not used to establish the time for service of the notice of appeal, we are left with the language of Rule 3(c) permitting service, as a general rule, within 30 days of the entry of the judgment appealed from without regard to the time of the filing of the notice of appeal. Thus, an appellant could file his notice of appeal the same day the judgment is entered and delay serving that notice until 30 days later. This procedure does not represent sound public policy and is inconsistent with other provisions in the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure requiring service contemporaneous with the filing of petitions for a writ of certiorari, N.C.R. App. P. 21(c), a writ of mandamus, N.C.R. App. P. 22(b), and a writ of supersedeas, N.C.R. App. P. 23(c). All parties affected by a notice of appeal should know of the appeal as soon as it is filed. Thus, our courts have properly construed the word “may” in Rule 3(e) as mandatory, not directory. See Shaw v. Hudson, 49 N.C. App. 457, 459, 271 S.E.2d 560, 561 (1980); see also N.C. State Art Soc’y, Inc. v. Bridges, 235 N.C. 125, 130, 69 S.E.2d 1, 5 (1952) (“may” can be either mandatory or directory depending on legislative intent).

. I, however, do read the majority opinion in this ease to hold that Rule 3(c) does establish a jurisdictional service requirement and that failure to comply with this rule mandates the dismissal of the appeal. I further read the majority opinion as holding that the Rule 26(b) service requirement is mandatory and that failure to comply with this rule subjects the appeal to dismissal, but dismissal is not required. These competing service requirements will necessarily create great confusion to appellants in this state.