In Re Estate of Wall

Court of Appeals of Utah

In Re Estate of Wall

2012 UT App 105, 275 P.3d 1091, 2012 WL 1128696

CourtCourt of Appeals of Utah

DecidedApril 5, 2012

Docket20120054-CA

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2012 UT App 105 (In Re Estate of Wall) 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

In Re Estate of Wall, 2012 UT App 105, 275 P.3d 1091, 2012 WL 1128696 (Utah Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

DECISION

PER CURIAM:

1 Dean Wall (Wall) filed a notice of appeal from the district court's Order on Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and on Prejudgment Writ of Attachment, entered on January 4, 2012. Although also characterizing herself as an appellant, Julie Barth-low (Barthlow) did not file a notice of appeal from the January 4, 2012 order. This case is before the court on a sua sponte motion for summary disposition for lack of jurisdiction.

T2 "An appeal may be taken from a district ... court to the appellate court with jurisdiction over the appeal from all final orders and judgments." Utah R.App. P. 3(a). An order is final and appealable only when it disposes of all of the claims against all parties on the merits. See Loffredo v. Holt, 2001 UT 97, ¶ 12, 37 P.3d 1070; Bradbury v. Valencia, 2000 UT 50, ¶ 9, 5 P.3d 649. An appeal taken from an order that is not final must be dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. See Bradbury, 2000 UT 50, ¶ 8, 5 P.3d 649.

T3 In the January 4, 2012 order, the district court found that the parties had entered into a settlement agreement, although ambiguities existed as to the terms of that agreement. The district court reserved its determination on the terms of the settlement agreement pending a trial, an evidentiary hearing, or a summary proceeding occurring after discovery had been conducted pursuant to a scheduling order or as otherwise agreed by the parties. The balance of the court's order provisionally granted a motion for a prejudgment writ of attachment of funds in certain bank accounts. Wall filed a notice of appeal from the order, which by its terms was interlocutory and not final.

T4 Because the order that Wall seeks to appeal is not final and appealable, we lack Jurisdiction to consider the appeal on its merits. Furthermore, because Barthlow did not file a notice of appeal on her own behalf, we lack jurisdiction to consider her purported appeal on that additional ground. Onee a court has determined that it lacks jurisdiction, it "retains only the authority to dismiss the action." Varian-Eimac, Inc. v. Lamoreaux, 767 P.2d 569, 570 (Utah Ct.App.1989). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction without prejudice to a timely appeal taken from the final judgment.

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

DECISION

PER CURIAM:

1 Dean Wall (Wall) filed a notice of appeal from the district court's Order on Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and on Prejudgment Writ of Attachment, entered on January 4, 2012. Although also characterizing herself as an appellant, Julie Barth-low (Barthlow) did not file a notice of appeal from the January 4, 2012 order. This case is before the court on a sua sponte motion for summary disposition for lack of jurisdiction.

T2 "An appeal may be taken from a district ... court to the appellate court with jurisdiction over the appeal from all final orders and judgments." Utah R.App. P. 3(a). An order is final and appealable only when it disposes of all of the claims against all parties on the merits. See Loffredo v. Holt, 2001 UT 97, ¶ 12, 37 P.3d 1070; Bradbury v. Valencia, 2000 UT 50, ¶ 9, 5 P.3d 649. An appeal taken from an order that is not final must be dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. See Bradbury, 2000 UT 50, ¶ 8, 5 P.3d 649.

T3 In the January 4, 2012 order, the district court found that the parties had entered into a settlement agreement, although ambiguities existed as to the terms of that agreement. The district court reserved its determination on the terms of the settlement agreement pending a trial, an evidentiary hearing, or a summary proceeding occurring after discovery had been conducted pursuant to a scheduling order or as otherwise agreed by the parties. The balance of the court's order provisionally granted a motion for a prejudgment writ of attachment of funds in certain bank accounts. Wall filed a notice of appeal from the order, which by its terms was interlocutory and not final.

T4 Because the order that Wall seeks to appeal is not final and appealable, we lack Jurisdiction to consider the appeal on its merits. Furthermore, because Barthlow did not file a notice of appeal on her own behalf, we lack jurisdiction to consider her purported appeal on that additional ground. Onee a court has determined that it lacks jurisdiction, it "retains only the authority to dismiss the action." Varian-Eimac, Inc. v. Lamoreaux, 767 P.2d 569, 570 (Utah Ct.App.1989). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction without prejudice to a timely appeal taken from the final judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2012 UT App 105, 275 P.3d 1091, 2012 WL 1128696, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-estate-of-wall-utahctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack