Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order and a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. VD055276, Robert Axel, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.)
Law Offices of James P. Karmy and James P. Karmy for Appellant.
Richard A. Miller for Respondent.
VOGEL, J.
This is a family law case in which the trial court entered a judgment on reserved issues ordering Michael Sullens to pay Mary Sullens monthly child and spousal support, plus $7,500 for Mary’s attorney’s fees. Michael purports to appeal from the judgment and from a subsequent post-trial order, but his notice of appeal is untimely and leaves us with no choice but to dismiss this appeal.
BACKGROUND
Michael and Mary were married in 1985. They had three children (born in 1989, 1993 and 1996), then separated in 2004, at which time Mary filed a petition to dissolve their marriage. In July 2005, the trial court entered a judgment dissolving the marriage, reserving jurisdiction over all other issues.
Following two days of trial during March 2006, the trial court entered a judgment on May 18, 2006 ordering Michael to pay child support (a total of $2,860 for all three children), spousal support of $1,000 per month, and $7,500 for Mary’s attorney’s fees (payable at the rate of $250 per month).
On the same day the judgment was entered (May 18, 2006), the court mailed notice of entry of judgment (using the required Judicial Council form) to Mary and Michael. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104(a)(1); Eisenberg et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Appeals and Writs (The Rutter Group 2006) Notices of Appeal, ¶ 3:37, p. 3-17.)
All rule references are to the California Rules of Court.
On June 12, Michael filed a motion to vacate the judgment or, in the alternative, for a new trial on the ground that the evidence did not support the orders made. On July 10, the trial court denied Michael’s motions.
On July 25, Mary served Michael with two notices of the July 10 ruling, one for each of his motions.
Although Michael claims that his lawyer withdrew on July 20, there is nothing in the appellate record to support this assertion.
On August 29, Michael filed a notice of appeal from the May 18 judgment and the July 10 order.
DISCUSSION
The notice of appeal was not timely.
Notice of entry of judgment was mailed by the court on May 18. Michael had 60 days within which to file his notice of appeal (that is, until July 17) (rule 8.104(a)(1)) but did not file his notice until August 29, more than a month beyond the jurisdictional deadline. (Van Beurden Ins. Services, Inc. v. Customized Worldwide Weather Ins. Agency, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 51, 56; rule 8.104(b).)
Michael’s motions to vacate the judgment or for a new trial cannot salvage his appeal. Where such motions are expressly denied, the time for filing a notice of appeal is extended for 30 days beyond the notice of entry of the order denying the motions (rule 8.108(a)(1), (b)(1)), but Michael’s notice was not filed within that time. Mary’s notices of the rulings on Michael’s motions were served on July 25, which extended the deadline to August 25 (a Friday), but Michael’s notice of appeal was not filed until August 29, the following Tuesday which was five days too late.
Code of Civil Procedure section 1013, which in some instances extends the time to act when notice is sent by mail, does not “apply to extend the time for filing [a] notice of appeal.” (§ 1013; rule 8.104(b); Casado v. Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1284, 1286.)
Michael’s purported appeal from the order denying his post-trial motions adds nothing because that order was reviewable only on appeal from the underlying judgment (and not directly appealable in itself). (Walker v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2005) 35 Cal.4th 15, 18.)
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
We concur: MALLANO, Acting P.J. JACKSON, J.
Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.