Conservatorship of Coombs

Bad Law
1998 Cal. App. LEXIS 971·67 Cal. App. 4th 1395·79 Cal. Rptr. 2d 799·98 Daily Journal DAR 12065·98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8632
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 24, 1998A083160California2,399 words

Opinion

Opinion

Jones, J.

On June 2, 1998, Mercedita Coombs (appellant) filed a notice of appeal indicating that she sought review of eight judgments/orders (hereafter rulings) of the trial court in a conservatorship proceeding. David F. Coombs, conservator of the person and estate of Guy F. Coombs (respondent), has moved to dismiss the appeal as to five of the eight identified rulings.

Respondent’s motion invites us to revisit the interplay between California Rules of Court, rules 2 and 3, which specify the critical deadlines a litigant must meet to preserve a right to appeal. In the published portion of this opinion, we consider whether a motion for reconsideration filed after a trial court’s notice of entry of judgment or appealable order should be construed as a motion to vacate or a motion for new trial, so as to extend the deadline for filing a notice of appeal under rule 3(a) or rule 3(b). We conclude that it should not. In view of the plain language of rule 3, we decline to endorse appellate authority which creates an appeal-saving exception to rule 2 in the case of a motion for reconsideration. Rule 3 does not apply in this instance to except appellant from the filing deadline of rule…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.