With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and Yarbrough refiled their Rule 59(e) motion in case number CV-2009-900753.80. RCH now argues that that April 5 motion was untimely because a motion to alter, amend, or vacate a judgment must be filed “not later than thirty (30) days after entry of the judgment,” and Hackel and Yarbrough’s April 5 motion was filed in case number CV-2009-900753.80 on the 31st day after the judgment was entered. Rule 59(e). Accordingly, RCH argues, that untimely Rule 59(e) motion did not toll the 42-day period for filing a notice of appeal, and the notice of appeal filed by the appellants on July 24, 2012 — 141 days after the trial court’s March 5 judgment — was untimely, thus making it necessary for this Court to dismiss the appeal. See Miller Props., LLC v. Green, 958 So.2d 850, 851-52 (Ala.2006) (<HOLDING>). We agree with RCH that the motion filed on

A: holding that the court did not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal after an untimely filing of a notice of appeal
B: holding that tenday time limit to appeal is both mandatory and jurisdictional and an appellate court has no jurisdiction over an untimely filed appeal
C: holding that a district court may not construe an untimely notice of appeal as a motion for extension of time
D: holding that an untimely postjudgment motion does not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal and that this court has no jurisdiction over an untimely filed appeal
D.