Horton v. Horton CA4/3

Filed 5/6/21 Horton v. Horton CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

PATRICIA L. HORTON,

Respondent, G058532

v. (Super. Ct. No. 18D004359)

ERIC HORTON, OPINION

Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, James L. Waltz, Judge. Dismissed. Eric Horton, in pro. per., for Appellant. No appearance by Respondent. * * *

Appellant Eric Horton challenges a trial court’s judgment entered in his marital dissolution case. Because his notice of appeal was filed 63 days after the court clerk served him a notice of entry of the judgment, we must dismiss his appeal as untimely. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104 (a)(1)(A) [normal deadline is 60 days after].)

I FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1 Eric and Patricia Horton were married in 1994 and in 2012, Patricia filed a petition for divorce. In August 2019, the case came on for a trial to determine the division of the parties’ marital and separate assets and liabilities. Both Eric and Patricia appeared in court without counsel, presented evidence, and cross-examined each other. Eleven days later, the trial court issued its rulings and entered judgment accordingly. Four days later, on September 4, 2019, the court’s clerk served Eric a “Notice of Entry of Judgment.” (Capitalization omitted; (entry notice).) On November 6, 2009, the 63rd day after the entry notice was served, Eric filed a notice of appeal challenging the court’s judgment. In an attachment to his appeal notice, Eric claims he did not receive the entry notice until seven weeks after it was served.