Opinion
No. ED 108515
02-23-2021
Jeff C. TACINA, Appellant, v. JO ANN FABRICS, Respondent.
Jeff C. Tacina, pro se. For Respondent: Carrie Claiborne, Kayla M. Loveless, 190 Carondelet Plaza, Ste. 600, St. Louis, MO 63105.
Jeff C. Tacina, pro se.
For Respondent: Carrie Claiborne, Kayla M. Loveless, 190 Carondelet Plaza, Ste. 600, St. Louis, MO 63105.
MICHAEL E. GARDNER, Judge Jeff Tacina appeals the trial court's judgment following proceedings in small claims court. Because Tacina's notice of appeal was untimely, we dismiss the appeal.
Background
On March 22, 2019, Tacina filed a petition in small claims court, alleging that Respondent owed him unpaid wages. On June 7, 2019, after hearing the evidence, the trial court ruled in favor of Respondent and dismissed Tacina's petition with prejudice. That same day, Tacina filed an application for trial de novo. On June 17, 2019, the trial court entered a judgment denying his application for trial de novo and dismissing the case with prejudice. More than five months later, on December 2, 2019, Tacina filed a notice of appeal.
Discussion
"This Court only has jurisdiction if [the appellant] filed a timely notice of appeal." Walker v. Smallwood , 247 S.W.3d 24 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008). Under Rule 81.04(a), "the notice of appeal must be filed no later than 10 days after the judgment becomes final." Redden v. Redden , 279 S.W.3d 240, 241 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009). A judgment "becomes final at the expiration of thirty days after its entry if no timely authorized after-trial motion is filed." Rule 81.05(a)(1).
All rule references are to the Missouri Supreme Court Rules (2019).
Here, because Tacina did not file an authorized after-trial motion, the judgment entered on June 17, 2019 became final on July 17, 2019. The deadline for filing a notice of appeal was July 29, 2019, but Tacina did not file his notice of appeal until December 2, 2019. This Court issued an order directing Tacina to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed. Tacina's response to the show cause order does not provide a basis recognized under Missouri law for excusing his untimely notice of appeal. Because Tacina's notice of appeal was untimely, we are without jurisdiction to consider this appeal.
Because the deadline fell on a Saturday, the notice of appeal was due on the next business day. Rule 44.01(a).
--------
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss the appeal.
Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., P.J., concurs.
Philip M. Hess, J., concurs.