CHERYL B. PENLAND,
No. 02 CVD 4903
RONALD C. PENLAND,
Appeal by defendant from an order entered 10 August 2004 by
Judge Peter L. Roda in Buncombe County District Court. Heard in
the Court of Appeals 18 September 2007.
Clarke Kent Wittstruck for plaintiff-appellee.
Hyler & Lopez, P.A., by George B. Hyler, Jr. and Stephen P. Agan, for defendant-appellant.
MARTIN, Chief Judge.
Cheryl Penland (plaintiff) brought this action for divorce
against Ronald Penland (defendant). On 15 April 2004, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on the issues of equitable distribution, post-separation support, and alimony. By order dated 10 August 2004, the trial court denied defendant's motion for summary judgment. After arbitration, the parties resolved all pending issues except for the validity of a disputed separation agreement, defendant's military pension, and possession of a mobile home. These issues were resolved by a written order entered 30 November 2006. Defendant gave oral notice of appeal in open court and filed his record in this Court on 12 March 2007. Plaintiff hasmoved to dismiss the appeal. For the following reasons, we must grant the motion to dismiss.
Parties permitted by law to appeal from a judgment or order must do so by filing an appropriate notice of appeal. N.C. R. App. P. 3 (2006). The North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure require that appeals in civil cases must be made by filing notice of appeal with the clerk of superior court and serving copies thereof upon all other parties within the time prescribed by subdivision (c) of this rule. N.C. R. App. P. 3(a) (2006). The notice of appeal must also designate the judgment or order from which appeal is taken and the court to which appeal is taken[,] and shall be signed by counsel of record for the party or parties taking the appeal[.] N.C. R. App. P. 3(d) (2006). The record in this case contains no such notice of appeal.
Defendant contends that he has given a sufficient notice of appeal because he informed the trial court of his intent to appeal and the trial court noted this intent in the 30 November 2006 order. These actions do not meet the requirements of Rule 3. Appellants must comply with the requirements of Rule 3 in order to confer jurisdiction on the state's appellate courts. Bailey v. State, 353 N.C. 142, 156, 540 S.E.2d 313, 322 (2000). The provisions of Rule 3 are jurisdictional, and failure to follow the requirements thereof requires dismissal of an appeal. Abels v. Renfro Corp., 126 N.C. App. 800, 802, 486 S.E.2d 735, 737 (1997). Therefore, the appeal must be dismissed.
Judges STROUD and ARROWOOD concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***