Court Opinion

ID: 9655835
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 19:23:18.367489+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:31:32.680623
License: Public Domain

BEN Z. GRANT, Justice,
concurring.
If the rule is to be interpreted and applied as set forth in the majority opinion, then the Supreme Court should consider changing the rule to make it more equitable. In this case, John filed a motion for new trial thirteen days after receiving notice that a judgment had been signed. This should extend the running of the plenary power of the court and should be considered a timely motion for new trial. He also had a right to rely upon the official notice by telephone by the clerk’s office informing him that the judgment had been signed on September 13, which, if this date had been correct, would have made his motion for new trial timely. However, under the present rules, without a motion to extend the effective date of the judgment, the right of appeal has been lost in spite of the other factors.
I respectfully concur.
ROSS, J., not participating.