1 MILR (Rev.) 21

IN THE SUPREME COURT
REPUBLIC OF THE MARSHALL ISLANDS

S.Ct. CIVIL NO. 85-01
(High Ct. Civil No. 1983-057)

LILLY LORENNIJ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

-v-

HENRY MULLER,
Defendant-Appellee.

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

AUGUST 31, 1985

BURNETT, C.J.

SUMMARY:

Appeal dismissed because Plaintiff-Appellant failed to prosecute "with due diligence" and to comply with appellate rules of procedure.

DIGEST:

1. APPEAL AND ERROR – Dismissal, Grounds for – Failure to Pay Fees and Costs: Rule 16 of Appellate Rules of Procedure allows thirty (30) days from service of notice of estimated cost of transcription for appellant to make payments.

2. APPEAL AND ERROR – Dismissal, Grounds for – Noncompliance with Rules: Rule 20(a) provides that failure of appellant to comply with the rules after filing notice of appeal is ground for dismissal of the appeal.

Judgment was entered in this action on December 3, 1984. Notice of appeal was filed March 7, 1985, following denial, February 17, 1985, of a motion for new trial.

Appellee has moved for dismissal of the appeal on the grounds that Appellant has failed to prosecute "with due diligence," and failed to comply with applicable laws and Appellate Rules of Procedure.

[1] Rule 16 of the Appellate Rules of Procedure allows thirty (30) days from service of notice of estimated cost of transcription for Appellant to make payment. The Notice in this appeal is dated April 12, 1985; while the record does not show the exact date of service, the clerk's affidavit makes clear that personal service was made on counsel later in that month. At this point, four months later, the estimated cost has still not been paid.

[2] Rule 20 (a) provides that failure of appellant to comply with the rules after filing notice of appeal is ground for dismissal of the appeal. I see dismissal as particularly appropriate here.

While this action is, on its face, a dispute over senior dri jerbal rights in Monkono weto, the immediate concern is entitlement to some $6,000.00 held by the Trust Territory Attorney General for payment to the dri jerbal. These funds bear no interest, so there should be an expeditious resolution of the dispute.

On March 11, 1985, the trial court issued an amended stay of judgment, conditional on deposit of $6,000.00 cash as security for satisfaction of the judgment, costs, interest and "damages for delay." No security deposit has been made; while failure to do so does not directly affect the appeal, it is further evidence of lack of diligence on the part of appellant.

I have, therefore, concluded that this appeal must be, and it hereby is, Dismissed. So Ordered.