In Re Marriage of Patscheck

Opinion

RICKLES, Acting P. J.

This is an action to dissolve the marriage of Stanley Douglas Patscheck (former husband) and Sharon Marie Patscheck

[802]

(former wife). Unsatisfied with the division of community property, former husband has attempted to appeal from the judgment. The notice of appeal was filed late, however, and therefore the appeal must be dismissed.

The judgment dissolving the marriage and dividing the community property was both filed and entered on November 13, 1984. Notice of entry of judgment was mailed on November 15, 1984.

Former husband’s notice of intention to move for new trial was filed on December 3,1984. This was beyond the fifteen-day period allowed by section 659 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The last day to file a notice of intention was November 30, 1984, a Friday which was not a holiday.

The motion for new trial was argued on January 4, 1985, and denied by minute order three days later. Apparently neither the court nor former wife’s counsel noticed the untimeliness of the filing of the notice of intention.

The notice of appeal from the judgment was filed on February 1, 1985, which was more than 60 days after the mailing of notice of entry of judgment but less than 30 days after the entry of the order denying the motion for new trial.

The normal time for filing a notice of appeal is 60 days after the mailing of a notice of entry of judgment. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2(a).) A motion for new trial will extend the time until 30 days after either entry of the order denying the motion or denial thereof by operation of law but only “[wjhen a

valid

notice of intention to move for a new trial is served and filed . . . .” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3(a), italics added.) A notice of intention filed after the allowed time is invalid and does not extend the time for filing a notice of appeal from the judgment beyond the normal 60 days.

(Radford

v.

Crown City Lumber & Mill Co.