Rulings on Post-Judgment Motions Made After Ninety Days Will Not Support an Appeal
In Hobbs, divorced parties sought custody and support modifications to the trial court's 2002 divorce decree. The trial court entered a judgment on June 28, 2006 awarding custody of the child to the mother, finding the father in contempt, and awarding the mother attorneys' fees. On June 27, 2006, the father filed a motion to alter or amend the June 28, 2006 judgment. The court held a hearing on that motion and, on October 26, 2006, 91 days after the motion was filed, granted the father's motion. The father filed his notice of appeal on December 1, 2006. The mother cross-appealed on December 7, 2006.
The court took up the issue of its jurisdiction ex mero motu, noting that jurisdictional matters are of such importance that a court may take notice of them even if they are not raised by either party and concluding that the judgment appealed from was void. The court pointed out that Rule 59.1 leaves no room for doubt that a postjudgment motion is denied by operation of law if the trial court fails to dispose of it within ninety days. After the expiration of ninety days, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to rule on a postjudgment motion. Therefore, any judgment entered after the ninety day period expired is void and will not support an appeal.
In this case, the October 26, 2006 judgment was entered after the ninety day period expired. As a result, it was void and could not support an appeal. Accordingly, both the father's appeal and the mother's cross-appeal were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
