Court Opinion

ID: 9701030
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 21:59:38.793223+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:17.471860
License: Public Domain

Reiber, J.,
¶ 12. dissenting. I respectfully dissent. I agree that the Court cannot be put in the position of ascertaining the intent of those who file appeals. Based on this consideration, the majority’s conclusion is sound from a policy point of view. But, at the same time, we ought to avoid ignoring the obvious meaning of words when interpreting the rules of appellate procedure. See State v. Carroll, 2003 VT 57, ¶ 7, 175 Vt. 571, 830 A.2d 89 (mem.) (construing a statute and presuming that “statutory language is inserted advisedly and not intended to create surplusage”).
¶ 13. “Mistaken” is a word that can mean only one thing — an accident. In choosing the word “mistakenly,” the rule-makers were willing to allow litigants some latitude when an appeal is filed in the wrong court. See In re S. Burlington-Shelburne Highway Project, 174 Vt. 604, 605, 817 A.2d 49, 51 (2002) (mem.) (“The Legislature is presumed to have intended the plain, ordinary meaning of the adopted statutory language.”). But we change the meaning of the rule if whenever a notice of appeal is filed with this Court within the proper time period and not the trial court, we construe the notice of appeal as “mistakenly” filed. Although appeal rights should be liberally construed, In re Hignite, 2003 VT 111, ¶ 9,176 Vt. 562, 844 A.2d 735 (mem.), we should not rewrite rules without following the procedures for doing so. See In re Lund, 2004 VT 55, ¶ 5, 177 Vt. 465, 857 A.2d 279 (mem.) (refusing to make a de facto enlargement of the appeals period by strictly construing the excusable neglect standard in V.R.A.P. 4).
¶ 14. In this matter, where a jurisdictional challenge was raised, we should adhere to the rule’s plain language and remand the case to the *66trial court to decide whether the appellant mistakenly filed the notice of appeal in this Court. I therefore dissent.