MARRS ELECTRIC CO. V. BASHFORD
APPEALS – Not timely; jurisdiction
Parties appealed the fact that trial court did not award pre-judgment interest in final and appealable order, but the movant did not plead via CR 59 to alter, amend or vacate such order. Instead, the movant argued that the trial judge "reserved" the issue of pre-judgment interest in earlier proceedings. The CA noted the holding in KFB v Gearhart, 853 S.W.2d 907 (Ky. App., 1993), wherein it stated that even if a trial judge "reserves" an issue to be heard after a final and appealable order is filed, the moving party is still responsible to make a CR 59 motion, and if he does not do so, his appeal will be considered untimely. Thus, the CA held the instant appeal was untimely filed and dismissed the case.
Digested by Cherry Henault