Levin v. M. CARLTON-LEVIN

Court of Appeals of Utah

Levin v. M. CARLTON-LEVIN

2011 UT App 288, 261 P.3d 106, 689 Utah Adv. Rep. 55, 2011 Utah App. LEXIS 291, 2011 WL 3759833

CourtCourt of Appeals of Utah

DecidedAugust 25, 2011

Docket20110499-CA

StatusPublished

This text of 2011 UT App 288 (Levin v. M. CARLTON-LEVIN) 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

Levin v. M. CARLTON-LEVIN, 2011 UT App 288, 261 P.3d 106, 689 Utah Adv. Rep. 55, 2011 Utah App. LEXIS 291, 2011 WL 3759833 (Utah Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

DECISION

PER CURIAM:

{1 Hope M. Cariton-Levin appeals the district court's order entered on May 3, 2011. Appellee, Robert Keith Levin filed a motion for summary disposition asserting that this court lacks jurisdiction for lack of a final, appealable order. Ms. Carlton-Levin does not oppose 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. For an order or judgment to be final, it must "dispose of all parties or claims to an action." Id. €10. The only exceptions to the final judgment rule are where: (1) an appeal is permitted under the cireumstances by statute, (2) the appellate court grants interlocutory appeal under rule 5 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure, or (8) the trial court certifies the order as final under rule 54(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. See id. $12. Additionally, "[a] trial court must determine the amount of attorney fees awardable to a party *107 before the judgment becomes final for purposes of appeal." ProMax Dev. Corp. v. Raile, 2000 UT 4, ¶ 15, 998 P.2d 254.

13 The record indicates that the district court's May 3, 2011 order does not determine the amount of attorney fees awardable and that this issue remains pending before the district court. Appellee filed a motion for summary disposition asserting that this court lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeal as the district court had not resolved the outstanding issue of attorney fees stemming from the May 8, 2011 order. Appellee requested that this court dismiss the appeal without prejudice to the filing of a timely appeal from a final, appealable order. Appellant does not oppose the motion for summary disposition. Because the issue of attorney fees remains pending in the district court, the May 3, 2011 order is not final for purposes of appeal, and this court is required to dismiss the appeal without prejudice. See id.; see also Bradbury, 2000 UT 50, ¶ 8, 5 P.3d 649.

T4 Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without prejudice to the filing of a timely appeal from a final, appealable order.

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

DECISION

PER CURIAM:

{1 Hope M. Cariton-Levin appeals the district court's order entered on May 3, 2011. Appellee, Robert Keith Levin filed a motion for summary disposition asserting that this court lacks jurisdiction for lack of a final, appealable order. Ms. Carlton-Levin does not oppose 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. For an order or judgment to be final, it must "dispose of all parties or claims to an action." Id. €10. The only exceptions to the final judgment rule are where: (1) an appeal is permitted under the cireumstances by statute, (2) the appellate court grants interlocutory appeal under rule 5 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure, or (8) the trial court certifies the order as final under rule 54(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. See id. $12. Additionally, "[a] trial court must determine the amount of attorney fees awardable to a party *107 before the judgment becomes final for purposes of appeal." ProMax Dev. Corp. v. Raile, 2000 UT 4, ¶ 15, 998 P.2d 254.

13 The record indicates that the district court's May 3, 2011 order does not determine the amount of attorney fees awardable and that this issue remains pending before the district court. Appellee filed a motion for summary disposition asserting that this court lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeal as the district court had not resolved the outstanding issue of attorney fees stemming from the May 8, 2011 order. Appellee requested that this court dismiss the appeal without prejudice to the filing of a timely appeal from a final, appealable order. Appellant does not oppose the motion for summary disposition. Because the issue of attorney fees remains pending in the district court, the May 3, 2011 order is not final for purposes of appeal, and this court is required to dismiss the appeal without prejudice. See id.; see also Bradbury, 2000 UT 50, ¶ 8, 5 P.3d 649.

T4 Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without prejudice to the filing of a timely appeal from a final, appealable order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2011 UT App 288, 261 P.3d 106, 689 Utah Adv. Rep. 55, 2011 Utah App. LEXIS 291, 2011 WL 3759833, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/levin-v-m-carlton-levin-utahctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack