Richards v. M & M Capital, LLC

Court of Appeals of Utah

Richards v. M & M Capital, LLC

2012 UT App 59, 273 P.3d 396, 702 Utah Adv. Rep. 65, 2012 WL 593420, 2012 Utah App. LEXIS 50

CourtCourt of Appeals of Utah

DecidedFebruary 24, 2012

Docket20110999-CA

StatusPublished

This text of 2012 UT App 59 (Richards v. M & M Capital, LLC) 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

Richards v. M & M Capital, LLC, 2012 UT App 59, 273 P.3d 396, 702 Utah Adv. Rep. 65, 2012 WL 593420, 2012 Utah App. LEXIS 50 (Utah Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

DECISION

PER CURIAM:

T1 Gary T. and Clara Rita Richards appeal the district court's October 7, 2011 order. This matter is before the court on a sua sponte motion for summary disposition. We dismiss the appeal without prejudice.

T 2 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. Indeed, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider an appeal unless it is taken from a final, appealable order. See id. T8. For an order to be a final, appealable order, the order must "dispose of all parties or claims to an action." Id. 110. 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. 112.

13 On July 29, 2011, Appellee M & M Capital, LLC, filed an unlawful detainer action seeking an order of restitution to remove the Richardses from the subject property as well as requesting an award of monetary damages. The unlawful detainer action was consolidated with a separate lawsuit that had been filed by the Richardses. On October 7, 2011, the district court entered an order of restitution requiring the Richardses to vacate the property. However, the claim for monetary damages remains pending before the district court. Thus, the October 7, 2011 order "does not dispose of all parties or claims to the action." Id. 110. The parties also fail to demonstrate that this appeal qualifies for any exception to the final judgment rule.

T4 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

DECISION

PER CURIAM:

T1 Gary T. and Clara Rita Richards appeal the district court's October 7, 2011 order. This matter is before the court on a sua sponte motion for summary disposition. We dismiss the appeal without prejudice.

T 2 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. Indeed, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider an appeal unless it is taken from a final, appealable order. See id. T8. For an order to be a final, appealable order, the order must "dispose of all parties or claims to an action." Id. 110. 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. 112.

13 On July 29, 2011, Appellee M & M Capital, LLC, filed an unlawful detainer action seeking an order of restitution to remove the Richardses from the subject property as well as requesting an award of monetary damages. The unlawful detainer action was consolidated with a separate lawsuit that had been filed by the Richardses. On October 7, 2011, the district court entered an order of restitution requiring the Richardses to vacate the property. However, the claim for monetary damages remains pending before the district court. Thus, the October 7, 2011 order "does not dispose of all parties or claims to the action." Id. 110. The parties also fail to demonstrate that this appeal qualifies for any exception to the final judgment rule.

T4 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)

2012 UT App 59, 273 P.3d 396, 702 Utah Adv. Rep. 65, 2012 WL 593420, 2012 Utah App. LEXIS 50, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richards-v-m-m-capital-llc-utahctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack