Summary
The Rhode Island Supreme Court granted certiorari and quashed an order allowing the respondents to file an out-of-time appeal from the District Court. The court held that defense counsel's failure to follow the clients' instructions until after the statutory deadline did not constitute accident, mistake, unforeseen cause, or excusable neglect under Rhode Island General Laws § 9-21-6.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Carlsons established accident, mistake, unforeseen cause, or excusable neglect sufficient to permit an out-of-time appeal under Rhode Island General Laws § 9-21-6.
- Whether counsel's failure to follow the clients' instructions until after the statutory appellate deadline justified relief under § 9-21-6.
Holdings
- A party seeking an out-of-time appeal under Rhode Island General Laws § 9-21-6 bears the burden of establishing accident, mistake, unforeseen cause, or excusable neglect, and the alleged facts must be sufficient to constitute one of those circumstances before the court may grant relief.
- Counsel's failure to file the required appellate papers within the statutory period, including failure to follow the clients' instructions until two days after the deadline, does not constitute an excuse warranting an out-of-time appeal under § 9-21-6.
Key quotations
“The only remedy available to one who has not filed within the prescribed period is to file a petition to the Superior Court pursuant to § 9-21-6, which gives an aggrieved party ninety days to file a petition to appeal if that party can establish that its appeal was not timely filed due to accident, mistake, unforeseen cause, or excusable neglect.” (517)
“relief cannot be made available to one who has lost his [or her] appeal by reason of mistake of law or by an act of negligence or dereliction on his own part.” (518)
“The rule was not intended as an alternative method of appellate review, nor as a means of circumventing time limits on appeal, except where compelling considerations of justice require that course.” (518)
Factual background
On October 18, 2001, the District Court entered judgment for the Bedfords after a full trial on the merits. The Carlsons had until Monday, October 22, 2001, to remove the case to Superior Court for a de novo trial. Although the Carlsons instructed their counsel to file the matter, counsel did not attempt to do so until October 24, two days after the deadline, and the Superior Court later granted the Carlsons' petition to appeal out of time.
Procedural history
The District Court entered judgment for the Bedfords after a trial on the merits of the Bedfords' tort claim. The Carlsons failed to remove the case to Superior Court within the statutory two-day period because their counsel did not follow their instructions until two days after the deadline. The Superior Court nevertheless granted the Carlsons' petition to file an out-of-time appeal under Rhode Island General Laws § 9-21-6. The Supreme Court granted the Bedfords' petition for certiorari, quashed the Superior Court order, and authorized remand of the papers.
Remand instructions
The papers may be remanded to the Superior Court with the Supreme Court's opinion endorsed thereon.