Performance Funding, LLC v. Barcon Corp.

OPINION

WEISBERG, Judge.

¶ 1 Appellee moved to dismiss this appeal for untimeliness. It argued that the notice of appeal was defective because appellants filed it during the pendency of a time-extending order. Appellants responded that the notice of appeal was only premature, and hence not defective. We denied appellee’s motion, with an opinion to follow. This is that opinion.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Appellants sued appellee to reclaim money and equipment. After appellants obtained an ex parte provisional replevin order, the sheriff seized the subject equipment. Appellee then filed a…