Ault v. EAGLE MOUNTAIN CITY

Court of Appeals of Utah

Ault v. EAGLE MOUNTAIN CITY

2011 UT App 173, 254 P.3d 774, 683 Utah Adv. Rep. 44, 2011 Utah App. LEXIS 176, 2011 WL 2176470

CourtCourt of Appeals of Utah

DecidedJune 3, 2011

Docket20110163-CA

StatusPublished

This text of 2011 UT App 173 (Ault v. EAGLE MOUNTAIN CITY) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Utah primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ault v. EAGLE MOUNTAIN CITY, 2011 UT App 173, 254 P.3d 774, 683 Utah Adv. Rep. 44, 2011 Utah App. LEXIS 176, 2011 WL 2176470 (Utah Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

*775 DECISION

PER CURIAM:

T1 Howard Ault appeals the district court's January 10, 2011 order denying his motion for summary judgment and granting Eagle Mountain City's motion for summary judgment. This matter is before the court on a sua sponte motion for summary disposition. We dismiss the appeal without prejudice.

T2 Generally, "[aln appeal is improper if it is taken from an order or judgment that is not final." Bradbury v. Valencia, 2000 UT 50, ¶ 9, 5 P.3d 649. In fact, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider an appeal unless it is taken from a final, appealable order. See id. ¶ 8.

T3 In Giusti v. Sterling Wentworth Corp., 2009 UT 2, 201 P.3d 966, the supreme court held that if a district court intends a minute entry or order to be the final order of the court, it "must explicitly direct that no additional order is necessary." Id. 1832. When the district court does not expressly direct that its order is the final order of the court, rule 7((2) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure requires the prevailing party, or the non-prevailing party when necessary, to prepare and file an order to trigger finality for purposes of appeal. See id. 130.

T4 The January 10, 2011 order does not satisfy the requirements set forth in Giusti. While the district court may have intended the order to be its final order, the district court did not expressly indicate that the order was the final order of the court and that no further order was required. Furthermore, no party prepared a final order as required by rule 7()(2) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. Thus, the order is not final for purposes of appeal, and this court is required to dismiss the appeal. See Bradbury, 2000 UT 50, T 8, 5 P.3d 649.

{5 Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without prejudice to the filing of a timely appeal from a final order.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*775 DECISION

PER CURIAM:

T1 Howard Ault appeals the district court's January 10, 2011 order denying his motion for summary judgment and granting Eagle Mountain City's motion for summary judgment. This matter is before the court on a sua sponte motion for summary disposition. We dismiss the appeal without prejudice.

T2 Generally, "[aln appeal is improper if it is taken from an order or judgment that is not final." Bradbury v. Valencia, 2000 UT 50, ¶ 9, 5 P.3d 649. In fact, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider an appeal unless it is taken from a final, appealable order. See id. ¶ 8.

T3 In Giusti v. Sterling Wentworth Corp., 2009 UT 2, 201 P.3d 966, the supreme court held that if a district court intends a minute entry or order to be the final order of the court, it "must explicitly direct that no additional order is necessary." Id. 1832. When the district court does not expressly direct that its order is the final order of the court, rule 7((2) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure requires the prevailing party, or the non-prevailing party when necessary, to prepare and file an order to trigger finality for purposes of appeal. See id. 130.

T4 The January 10, 2011 order does not satisfy the requirements set forth in Giusti. While the district court may have intended the order to be its final order, the district court did not expressly indicate that the order was the final order of the court and that no further order was required. Furthermore, no party prepared a final order as required by rule 7()(2) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. Thus, the order is not final for purposes of appeal, and this court is required to dismiss the appeal. See Bradbury, 2000 UT 50, T 8, 5 P.3d 649.

{5 Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without prejudice to the filing of a timely appeal from a final order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2011 UT App 173, 254 P.3d 774, 683 Utah Adv. Rep. 44, 2011 Utah App. LEXIS 176, 2011 WL 2176470, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ault-v-eagle-mountain-city-utahctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack