Case Caption: Egbert George v. Henry Ashtian Elroy Ashtian Sr.Case Number: SCT-CIV-2026-0018Date: 09/16/2026Author: Form Field 49Francois, Denise M. Citation: 2026 VI 18Summary: A pro se appellant’s contention that his February 18, 2026 notice of appeal from the Superior Court’s May 5, 2025 order granting the appellees’ motion to dismiss was timely filed is rejected. While the May 5, 2025 order was final for purposes of appeal, and appellant timely filed a motion for reconsideration of that order on May 19, 2025 as permitted under Rule 6-4 of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure, followed by a motion for relief from such order pursuant to Rules 60(b)(2), 60(b)(3), and 60(b)(6) on November 5, 2025, and a subsequent supplemental memorandum of law addressing related issues on November 25, 2025, the Superior Court never ruled on either motion or took any apparent action on the supplemental filing. If a Rule 60(b) motion is filed more than 28 days after the entry of the Superior Court order on which it is premised, and no notice of appeal has yet been filed, such motion does not toll the time to appeal. Additionally, a motion for reconsideration filed pursuant to Civil Rule 6-4 is not expressly listed in Appellate Rule 5(a)(4) as a filing that will extend the 30-day deadline for filing a notice of appeal set by Appellate Rule 5(a)(1). The appellant’s Rule 60(b) motion, filed in November 2025, well over 28 days after the entry of the May 5, 2025 order, did not toll the time to file a notice of appeal. And even if the Court were to treat the appellant’s timely motion for reconsideration as one which extended the deadline for filing the notice of appeal by operation of Appellate Rule 5(a)(4), that extension is not indefinite, and the appellant’s notice of appeal was filed 93 days after the latest possible extended deadline available under this rule. Further, the appellant has neither argued nor shown good cause for filing a belated notice of appeal, and while Appellate Rule 5 is a non-jurisdictional claims processing rule that does not foreclose this Court from reviewing an otherwise untimely appeal in the exercise of its discretion, the appellees did not waive the timeliness issue. Accordingly, because appellant did not timely file the notice of appeal, even with the benefit of an extension worked by Appellate Rule 5(a)(4), and has not given any substantial reason why the requirement for timely filing should be relaxed in this case, the appeal is dismissed as untimely. However, appellant’s Rule 60(b) motion remains pending before the Superior Court for disposition in accordance with Appellate Rule 5(a)(5), and nothing in this opinion addresses the merits of that motion.Attachment: Open Document or Opinion