Opinion
Case No. 20060157-CA.
Filed June 29, 2006.
Appeal from the Third District, Silver Summit Department, 034500255 The Honorable Bruce C. Lubeck.
David B. Thompson and Christina I. Miller, Park City, for Appellant and Cross-appellee.
David S. Dolowitz, Dena C. Sarandos, and Thomas J. Burns, Salt Lake City, for Appellee and Cross-appellant.
Before Judges Greenwood, Davis, and Thorne.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Cheryl Carsten seeks to cross-appeal the trial court's order dated January 24, 2006. This is before the court on its own motion for summary disposition based on the lack of jurisdiction due to an untimely filed notice of cross-appeal.
It is undisputed that Carsten filed her notice of cross-appeal fifteen days after Brian Carsten filed his notice of appeal. Pursuant to rule 4(d), if a party files a timely notice of appeal, "any other party may file a notice of appeal within 14 days after the date on which the first notice of appeal was filed." Utah R. App. P. 4(d). Under the plain language of rule 4(d), Carsten's notice of cross-appeal was untimely. See id. As a result, this court lacks jurisdiction over the cross-appeal.See Glezos v. Frontier Invs., 826 P.2d 1230, 1233 (Utah Ct.App. 1995).
Carsten asserts that her notice of cross-appeal was timely because three days should be added to the time period to file under rule 22 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Utah R. App. P. 22(d). The filing of notices of appeal and cross-appeal, however, are beyond the scope of rule 22. Pursuant to rule 22, when a party "is required or permitted to do an act within a prescribed period after service of a paper and the paper is served by mail, 3 days shall be added to the prescribed period." Id. By its plain language, rule 22 extends the time to respond to documents only where the time runs from the "service of [the] paper." Id.
The time for filing a notice of cross-appeal, however, runs from the date of the filing of the notice of appeal. See Utah R. App. P. 4(d). Because the time does not run from the service of the notice of appeal, but from the filing of it in court, rule 22 does not apply. Therefore, Carsten's notice of cross-appeal was untimely.
When a court lacks jurisdiction over a cross-appeal, it must dismiss the cross-appeal. See Bradbury v. Valencia, 2000 UT 50, ¶ 8, 5 P.3d 649. Accordingly, this cross-appeal is dismissed.
Pamela T. Greenwood, Associate Presiding Judge, and James Z. Davis, Judge, William A. Thorne Jr., Judge.