Grace Woodham v. Caledonian Record & a.

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2021-0284, Grace Woodham v. Caledonian
Record & a., the court on March 18, 2022, issued the following
order:

The plaintiff’s motion to accept a non-conforming filing is granted.
Having considered the memoranda of law and record submitted on appeal, we
conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1).
The plaintiff, Grace Woodham, appeals orders of the Circuit Court (Greenhalgh
and Maloney, JJ., and Ryan, R., approved by Maloney, J.) dismissing her small
claims against the defendants, Caledonian Record Publishing Company, Inc.,
Union Leader Corporation, and John Koziol, and denying her untimely motions
for reconsideration. The defendants request that we dismiss the appeal as
untimely. We affirm in part, and dismiss the appeal in part.

Rule 7(1) of the Supreme Court Rules requires that a notice of appeal be
filed within thirty days from the date on the clerk’s written notice of the
decision on the merits. A timely filed post-decision motion stays the running of
the appeal period. Sup. Ct. R. 7(1)(C). An untimely filed post-decision motion
does not stay the running of the appeal period unless the trial court waives the
untimeliness within the appeal period. Id. In the absence of an express waiver
of the untimeliness made by the trial court within the appeal period, the appeal
period is not extended even if the trial court rules on the merits of an untimely
filed post-decision motion. Id.

On March 12, 2021, the trial court issued a written notice of decision
granting Union Leader’s and John Koziol’s motion to dismiss Woodham’s
complaint against them. On March 24, 2021, Woodham filed an untimely
motion for reconsideration, see Dist. Div. R. 4.8, which was denied in a notice
of decision dated April 14, 2021. Although the trial court ruled on the motion,
it did not expressly waive the untimeliness.

On March 26, 2021, the trial court issued a written notice of decision
granting Caledonian Record’s motion to dismiss Woodham’s complaint against
it. On April 9, 2021 and May 19, 2021, Woodham filed duplicate untimely
motions for reconsideration, see Dist. Div. R. 4.8, which were denied in a notice
of decision dated June 21, 2021. Although the trial court ruled on the
motions, it did not expressly waive their untimeliness. Consequently, any
appeal in this case should have been filed no later than April 26, 2021.
 Woodham’s notice of appeal was filed on July 2, 2021. Accordingly, with
respect to all but the trial court’s June 21, 2021 decision denying the untimely
motions for reconsideration regarding the dismissal of the complaint against
the Caledonian Record, Woodham’s appeal is untimely, and is, therefore,
dismissed. See Sup. Ct. R. 5(4); Germain v. Germain, 137 N.H. 82, 84-85
(1993) (treating appeal from denial of untimely motion for reconsideration as
timely appeal only as to the denial of the motion, and not as to the earlier
decision on the merits); In re Estate of Porter, 159 N.H. 212, 214 (2009) (citing
Germain for same proposition). To the extent that Woodham’s notice of appeal
seeks our review of the trial court’s June 21, 2021 decision denying her
untimely motions for reconsideration, we have reviewed the record and
conclude that the trial court did not unsustainably exercise its discretion in
denying the motions. See Broom v. Continental Cas. Co., 152 N.H. 749, 752
(2005) (“We will uphold a trial court’s decision on a motion for reconsideration
absent an unsustainable exercise of discretion.”).

Woodham’s pending motions for reconsideration and for an injunction
are moot.

Affirmed in part; and
dismissed in part.

Hicks, Bassett, Hantz Marconi, and Donovan, JJ., concurred.

Timothy A. Gudas,
Clerk

2