Setik v FSM Development Bank [2018] FMSC 29; 21 FSM R. 604 (App. 2018) (20 June 2018)

FSM SUPREME COURT APPELLATE DIVISION

MARIANNE B. SETIK, THE ESTATE OF MANNY ) APPEAL CASE NO. P6-2016
SETIK, ATANASIO SETIK, VICKY SETIK IRONS, ) APPEAL CASE NO. P11-2015
IRENE SETIK WALTER, MARLEEN SETIK, ) APPEAL CASE NO. P4-2015
JUNIOR SETIK, ELEANOR SETIK SOS, JOANITA ) (consolidated)
SETIK PANGELINAN, MERIAM SETIK, ) (Civil Acton Nos. 2007-008 & 2010-006)
CHRISTOPHER JAMES SETIK, JERMINA SETIK, )
and AREEN SETIK, individually and d/b/a )
C-STAR APARTELLE, )
)
Appellants, )
)
vs. )
)
FSM DEVELOPMENT BANK, )
)
Appellee. )
_____________________________________________ )

ORDER DENYING REHEARING PETITION

Decided: June 20, 2018

BEFORE:

Hon. Larry Wentworth, Associate Justice, FSM Supreme Court
Hon. Cyprian J. Manmaw, Specially Assigned Justice, FSM Supreme Court*
Hon. Mayceleen J.D. Anson, Specially Assigned Justice, FSM Supreme Court**

*Chief Justice, State Court of Yap, Colonia, Yap
**Associate Justice, Pohnpei Supreme Court, Kolonia, Pohnpei

APPEARANCE:

For the Appellants: Yoslyn G. Sigrah, Esq.
P.O. Box 3018
Kolonia, Pohnpei FM 96941

* * * *

HEADNOTE

Appellate Review Rehearing
A petition for rehearing may be denied as untimely when untimely filed and not accompanied by a request for enlargement of time. Setik v. FSM Dev. Bank, 21 FSM R. 604, 605 (App. 2018).

* * * *

COURT’S OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Our opinion and the judgment in this matter was entered on May 1, 2018. [Setik v. FSM Dev. Bank, 21 FSM R. 505 (App. 2018).] On May 23, 2018, the appellants filed their petition for rehearing. Appellate Rule 40(a) provides that "[a] petition for rehearing may be filed within 14 days after entry of judgment unless the time is shortened or enlarged by order." The appellants have not moved for an enlargement of time to file this petition. It is therefore untimely. A petition for rehearing may be denied as untimely when untimely filed and not accompanied by a request for enlargement of time. Berman v. College of Micronesia-FSM, 15 FSM R. 612, 613 (App. 2008); Goya v. Ramp, 14 FSM R. 305, 307 (App. 2006). No such request accompanied the petition.

Accordingly, we deny this petition for rehearing as untimely.

Furthermore, we have carefully reviewed and have determined that we have neither overlooked nor misapprehended any points of law or fact. Stephen v. Chuuk, 17 FSM R. 496, 499 (App. 2011); Berman v. Pohnpei, 17 FSM R. 464, 465 (App. 2011); Damarlane v. Pohnpei Legislature, 15 FSM R. 529, 529 (App. 2008); Iriarte v. Etscheit, 8 FSM R. 263, 264 (App. 1998); Nena v. Kosrae (II), 6 FSM R. 437, 438 (App. 1994).

* * * *