Untimely Appeal Not Recharacterized as Cross-Appeal
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe court dismissed an attempt by a party to have their untimely appeal declared a cross-appeal because the original appeal had already been formally decided, and furthermore, the party's filing date predated their knowledge of the opposing party's appeal, thus precluding it from being a cross-appeal. The court reasoned that the two procedural actions are substantively distinct, with a cross-appeal being contingent upon the main appeal, and since the party failed to file a proper cross-appeal within the legally prescribed ten-day period following notification of the main appeal, the delayed filing could not be recharacterized.
Legislator headnote
AI generated§§ 247 und 251 ZPO; Untimely Appeal Not Recharacterized as Cross-Appeal: The court reasoned that the two procedural actions are substantively distinct, with a cross-appeal being contingent upon the main appeal, and since the party failed to file a proper cross-appeal within the legally prescribed ten-day period following notification of the main appeal, the delayed filing could not be recharacterized.
Keywords
AI generatedCited Legislation
AI generatedCited Case Law
AI generatedRelated Decisions
AI generatedKey legal questions extracted by Legislator
AI generatedThis provision forms the basis for the decision not to proceed with the appellant's cross-appeal application because it was improperly filed.
Full text
Rechtsprechung Luzern
Instanz: · Obergericht
Abteilung: · I. Kammer
Rechtsgebiet: · Zivilprozessrecht
Entscheiddatum: · 11.12.2006
Fallnummer: · 11 06 128
LGVE: · 2007 I Nr. 35
Leitsatz: · §§ 247 und 251 ZPO. Eine verspätete Appellationserklärung kann nicht in eine Anschlussappellation umgedeutet werden.
Rechtskraft: · Diese Entscheidung ist rechtskräftig.