Court Opinion

ID: 9885792
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 14:06:17.597421+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:23:16.372979
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: SEPTEMBER 29, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
                         TO BE PUBLISHED

                Commonwealth of Kentucky
                          Court of Appeals
                             NO. 2023-CA-0664-MR

LINDA DAY, AS EXECUTRIX OF
THE ESTATE OF ELTA RENFROW                                           APPELLANT

                 APPEAL FROM GRAYSON CIRCUIT COURT
v.                HONORABLE BRUCE T. BUTLER, JUDGE
                        ACTION NO. 23-XX-00002

LORETTA FILIP, INDIVIDUALLY
AND AS EXECUTRIX OF THE
ESTATE OF JOSEPH RANDALL
RENFROW                                                                APPELLEE

                             OPINION AND ORDER
                             DISMISSING APPEAL

                                   * * * * * *

BEFORE: CALDWELL, COMBS, AND LAMBERT, JUDGES.

LAMBERT, JUDGE: On May 26, 2023, Appellant Linda Day, as Executrix of the

Estate of Elta Renfrow, filed a notice of appeal from an opinion and order of the

Grayson Circuit Court, entered on May 2, 2023, dismissing Day’s appeal from an

order of January 4, 2023, entered by the Grayson District Court. On June 8, 2023,

this Court directed Day to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed as
proceeding improperly because Day should have filed a motion for discretionary

review from the opinion and order of May 2, 2023. Day filed a response on June

28, 2023.

                The underlying case arises from an action initiated in the Grayson

District Court for probate claims. On January 4, 2023, the Grayson District Court

entered an order granting the final settlement of the Estate of Elta Renfrow and

denying Day’s claim against the Estate. Day filed an appeal from the order of

January 4, 2023, to the Grayson Circuit Court. On May 2, 2023, the Grayson

Circuit Court dismissed Day’s appeal on the ground that it could not grant the

specific relief requested. On May 26, 2023, Day filed a notice of appeal to this

Court from the opinion and order of May 2, 2023.

                This Court exercises discretionary jurisdiction over cases originating

in district court and heard on appeal by the circuit court. See Commonwealth v.

Hurd, 612 S.W.2d 766 (Ky. App. 1981). KRS1 22A.020(1) provides that a litigant

may appeal “as a matter of right to the Court of Appeals from any conviction, final

judgment, order, or decree in any case, in Circuit Court, . . . unless such conviction,

final judgment, order, or decree was rendered on an appeal from a court inferior to

Circuit Court.” (Emphasis added.) Furthermore, a litigant must file certain

procedural devices to invoke this Court’s appellate or discretionary jurisdiction.

1
    Kentucky Revised Statutes.
                                           -2-
Further elucidation of this issue is warranted for counsel and the bar as to the

potential pitfalls in civil practice.

                To request the Court of Appeals to exercise its discretionary

jurisdiction, a litigant must file a motion for discretionary review, previously

known as a writ of certiorari. KRS 22A.020(5); RAP2 44(A). The motion for

discretionary review must be filed with the Clerk of the Court of Appeals within

thirty (30) days from the date of entry of the circuit court judgment. See RAP

44(B)(1). Most importantly, the filing of a timely motion for discretionary review

is jurisdictional. See RAP 44(B)(3) (“The failure of a party to file a motion for

discretionary review within the time specified in this rule, or as extended by a

previous order, shall result in a dismissal of the motion for discretionary review.”).

                Because the filing of a motion for discretionary review is

jurisdictional, “a notice of appeal may not serve to transfer jurisdiction to an

appellate court, when a motion for discretionary review is called for by the [Rules

of Appellate Procedure].” Beard v. Com. ex rel Shaw, 891 S.W.2d 382, 383 (Ky.

1994) (holding that an appellant failed to invoke the Court of Appeals’ appellate

jurisdiction where he filed a notice of appeal rather than a motion for discretionary

review). Although this Court adopted a policy of substantial compliance in Ready

v. Jamison, 705 S.W.2d 479 (Ky. 1986), “the doctrine of substantial compliance

2
    Kentucky Rules of Appellate Procedure.
                                             -3-
. . . only applies to defects that are nonjurisdictional in nature.” Beard, 891 S.W.2d

at 383 (citing City of Devondale v. Stallings, 795 S.W.2d 954, 957 (Ky. 1990),

superseded by rule as stated in Mahl v. Mahl, 671 S.W.3d 140 (Ky. 2023)).

Moreover, the distinctions between a notice of appeal and a motion for

discretionary review are not mere technicalities or traps for the unwary.

             “The purpose and function of [a notice of appeal and a motion for

discretionary review] are significantly different.” Id. A notice of appeal gives

notice that a litigant seeks an appeal as a matter of right whereas a motion for

discretionary review requests an appellate court to exercise its appellate

jurisdiction as a matter of judicial discretion. Id.

             In the case sub judice, Day filed an appeal to the Grayson Circuit

Court from an order granting a final settlement and denying her claim against the

Estate entered by the Grayson District Court. On May 2, 2023, the circuit court

entered an order dismissing the appeal. That ended Day’s appeal as a matter of

right. Any subsequent appeal would be at the judicial discretion of this Court.

             On May 26, 2023, Day filed a notice of appeal attempting to invoke

this Court’s appellate jurisdiction. The notice of appeal, however, was not the

proper procedural device to request this Court to exercise its appellate jurisdiction

over a case originating in district court. Therefore, Day failed to invoke this

Court’s jurisdiction as required by KRS 22A.020(5).

                                           -4-
            Having reviewed the record and being otherwise sufficiently advised;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court FINDS INSUFFICIENT CAUSE

SHOWN to allow the appeal to proceed. The above-styled appeal shall be, and

hereby is, DISMISSED.

            ALL CONCUR.

ENTERED: September 29, 2023_
                                            JUDGE, COURT OF APPEALS

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:                 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:

Earlene Racquel Whitaker                Alton Lee Cannon
Leitchfield, Kentucky                   Joseph Michael Harris, Jr.
                                        Leitchfield, Kentucky

                                      -5-